Orozco v. Ryan et al
| Arizona District Court | |
| Case #: | 2:10-cv-01514 |
| Nature of Suit | 530 Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus - General |
| Cause | 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| Case Filed: | Jul 16, 2010 |
| Terminated: | Feb 07, 2012 |
Petitioner
Rogelio Sanchez Orozco
|
|
Respondent
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
|
|
Respondent
Charles L Ryan
|
GPO
Aug 24 2010
ORDER that Petitioner's 3 Motion For Appointment Of Counsel and 4 Motion For Court Appointed Interpreter are both denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 08/23/10. (ESL) ***CORRECTION - Docket modified to correct Signed by Judge from (Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey) to (Judge James A Teilborg) on 8/26/2010 (DTN).*** |
|
|
GPO
May 04 2011
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Mr. Orozco's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey on 5/3/11. (TLJ) |
|
|
GPO
Feb 07 2012
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 25 is accepted in part and modified in part as specified in this order; Petitioner's Objections 38 are overruled, the Petition is denied and dismissed, with prejudice, and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly; Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Proceedings 39 and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 are denied as unnecessary; Petitioner's Motion to file an amended habeas petition 24 is denied as futile because it does not raise any new issues relevant to the timeliness of the petition; Petitioner's Motion for Stay and Abeyance 22 is denied because the statute of limitations has already run and stay and abeyance is appropriate where Petitioner has good cause for failing to exhaust claims in state court and the claims have merit; a Certificate of Appealability is denied because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court's procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 2/7/12. (REW) |