Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-828 - Arnold #253905 v. Ryan et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-828 - Arnold #253905 v. Ryan et al
July 28, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 8 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Frank John Arnold be denied and dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 7/27/16. (LSP)
April 5, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING 38 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The petitioner's First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.8) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Frank John Arnold. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 04/05/2017. (KAS)
October 5, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER denying Petitioner's 49 [Second Amended Motion] to Alter or Amend Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's [Second Amended] Application for Certificate of Appealability (part of Doc. 49) is denied and that a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue because the petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether his Rule 59(e) motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's [Second Amended Motion for] Appointment of Counsel (part of Doc. 49) is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with a copy of this Order to be filed in No. 17-16106. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/5/2017. (ATD)