Morrow v. Williams et al
| Troy Anthony Morrow |
| Nevada Attorney General and Brian E. Williams, Sr. |
| 3:2017cv00580 |
| September 20, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| Miranda M. Du |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
39
ORDER - The Petition (ECF No. 4 ) is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/18/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER that Respondents' three motions for extension of time to file an answer to the petition (ECF Nos. 31 , 32 , 33 ) are all granted nunc pro tunc; Petitioner's motion for copy of answer (ECF No. 35 ) is denied w ithout prejudice as set forth in this order; Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of his petition (ECF No. 36 ) is granted; Petitioner must file and serve his reply on or before September 3, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/16/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER granting nunc pro tunc ECF No. 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply to Response to ECF No. 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER that Respondents' motion to dismiss ECF No. 9 is granted; Grounds 4 and 5 are both dismissed as set forth in this order; Grounds 1(D), 1(E), 2(D), and 3 are unexhausted; Petitioner to have 30 days to inform this court, in a sworn declaration, either (1) that he wishes to formally and forever abandon the unexhausted grounds for relief, (2) that he wishes to dismiss this petition without prejudice in order to return to state court, or (3) file a motion for stay and abeyance; if Petitioner elects to abandon his unexhausted grounds, Respondent shall have 30 days from date of service of declaration to file an answer to petitioner's remaining grounds; Petitioner will have 30 days following service of Respondents' answer in which to file a reply; if Petitioner fails to respond to this order within the time permitted, this case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER denying ECF No. 21 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner must file his response to ECF No. 9 Respondents' motion to dismiss by 2/17/2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER denying without prejudice ECF No. 17 Motion for leave to file an amended petition; denying ECF No. 19 Motion for appointment of counsel; granting ECF No. 18 Motion for enlargement of time to respond to ECF No. 9 Motion to Dismiss. Response due by 7/22/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER that petitioner's second motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8 ) is denied; respondents' motion for extension of time to file a response to the petition (ECF No. 7 ) is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
