Stanford v. Gonzalez
Petitioner: Murray Stanford
Respondent: - Gonzalez
Case Number: 2:2010cv00438
Filed: February 22, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Kern
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 07/29/11 ORDERING that petitioner's 32 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; his objections to 31 F&Rs are due 08/29/11. (Benson, A.)
July 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 31 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 7/5/2011 recommending that the application for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. Objections due within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)
April 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Due to the appointment of Recalled Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino to the bench of the Eastern District, this action is REASSIGNED from Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd to Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino for all further proceedings. The District Judge currently assigned to the case will remain unchanged. (Donati, J)
February 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 2/1/2011 ORDERING 26 that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge, filed 12/21/2010 25 , is AFFIRMED. (Reader, L)
December 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/10 ORDERING that petitioners 20 motion for partial summary judgment is construed as supplemental points and authorities in support of the habeas corpus petition filed in this action and is denied on that basis; and Petitioners 24 motion for sanctions is denied.(Dillon, M)
August 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/25/2010 ORDERING that the action denominated CIV-S-10-1431 CMK is REASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd for all further proceedings; the Magistrate Judge and District Judge assigned to case No. CIV S-10-0438 FCD DAD will remain the same.(Yin, K)
March 4, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/04/10 granting 4 Motion to Proceed IFP and DIRECTING RESPONDENT to File a Response to Petition within 60 days from the date of this order. Clerk to serve a copy of this order, a copy of the Petition 1 , 2 and the Order re Consent on the Attorney General. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General)(Plummer, M)
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 California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stanford v. Gonzalez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Murray Stanford
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: - Gonzalez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?