Rodriguez v. Warden et al
| Evaristo Navarro Rodriguez |
| Warden and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2020cv00669 |
| December 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Carla Baldwin |
| Miranda M Du |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 JUDGMENT. Signed by Clerk of Court Debra K. Kempi on 12/4/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW) |
Filing 3
ORDER - This action is dismissed without prejudice; Clerk directed to send Petitioner both a 2254 form and IFP form along with a copy of this order (Attached hereto for distribution to P); a certificate of appealability is denied; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/4/2020. (Attachments: #1 IFP Inmate Packet, #2 2254 Habeas Packet)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE from USDC advising case against Warden, et al., has been received and assigned case number 3:20-cv-00669. (DRM) |
| Filing 1 RECEIPT of Initiating Documents by Court on behalf of Petitioner. No Application to Proceed IFP or Filing Fee received. (Attachments: #1 Motion to Take Judicial Notice) (DRM) |
| Case randomly assigned to Chief Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin. (LE) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
