From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aparicio v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Jan 23, 2008
3:07-cv-00427-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2008)

Opinion

3:07-cv-00427-LRH-VPC.

January 23, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner's motion (#22) to correct record is DENIED. The entry to which petitioner refers in his motion signifies only that an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal was not acted on or granted in the district court. The entry has nothing to do with whether petitioner was granted pauper status in the district court proceedings, which is a matter of record.


Summaries of

Aparicio v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Jan 23, 2008
3:07-cv-00427-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2008)
Case details for

Aparicio v. McDaniel

Case Details

Full title:HUGO APARICIO, Petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Jan 23, 2008

Citations

3:07-cv-00427-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2008)