Grow v. Dzurenda et al
| Joshua Ryan Grow |
| James Dzurenda and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2017cv00637 |
| October 23, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| William G. Cobb |
| 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
37
ORDER denying ECF No. 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; denying a certificate of appealability; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER Re: ECF No. 35 Letter Status Request : The Court will rule on Grow's petition in due course, as its caseload allows. Neither Grow nor Respondents need take any further action in this case at this time. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER - Grow's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 29 ) is granted. Grow will have until and including April 12, 2019, to file his reply to Respondents' answer. It is further ordered that Grow's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 30 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER granting ECF No. 26 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits in Camera and Under Seal. Exhibits 108, 109 and 11 filed under seal ECF No. 27 , no further action is necessary. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/19/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER that Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13 ) is granted in part and denied in part; Grounds 1C, 1D, 3B and 4A of the habeas petition are dismissed; in all other respects, Respondents' motion to dismiss is de nied; Respondents' are to file an answer to the claims remaining in the habeas petition (ECF No. 7 ) by 11/4/2018; Petitioner will have 90 days to file a reply. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER that respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time to file reply to ECF No. 13 Motion to Dismiss. Respondents' reply due by 5/9/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER the Clerk to separately file the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the motion for appointment of counsel attached to the IFP ECF No. 1 ; Clerk directed to add AG as counsel for respondents and serve respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and a copy of this order (e-served on 12/04/2017); respondents will have sixty (60) days to answer or otherwise respond to the petition; petitioner will have sixty (60) days to file a reply to the answer; if respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner will have sixty (60) days to file a response to the motion to dismiss and then respondents will have thirty (30) days to file a reply to petitioner's response; petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
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.
