Garcia v. Clark
| Mario Flavio Garcia |
| Ken Clark |
| 2:2010cv00968 |
| April 21, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Kings |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
169
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/3/14 ADOPTING IN FULL 157 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 149 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
161
ORDER denying 159 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/26/13. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
157
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/17/2013 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 149 request for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b) and for an evidentiary hearing be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
134
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/9/12 ORDERING that petitioners October 3, 2012, request for appointment of counsel 133 is DENIED; Petitioner's October 3, 2012 request for an extension of time 132 is GRANTED; and Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the September 19, 2012 findings and recommendations. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/18/2012 ORDERING that petitioner's 59 motion for leave to conduct discovery is DENIED; petitioner's 90 "Notice of Newly Discovered Evidence&q uot;, construed as a motion to conduct discovery, is DENIED; petitioner's 95 motion to strike is DENIED; petitioner's 106 motion and request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and petitioner's 115 motion to compel produc tion of the transcripts and record of the oral argument before the California Court of Appeal is DENIED; and RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 application for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 21 days.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/2/2012 DENYING 110 Motion for Extension as moot. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER ADOPTING 79 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/13/12 VACATING the 82 Order issued on 3/1/12; DENYING 91 and 103 Motions for Reconsideration as unnecessary; GRANTING 83 Motion for acceptance of late filing of objections; the 53 and 70 Motions to Amend are DENIED; the Court declines to issue COA. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/29/2012 ADOPTING 79 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 53 , 70 Motions to Amend the Complaint; DECLINING to issue a Certificate of Appealability. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/28/2011 GRANTING Petitioner's # 62 motion to substitute the correct respondent in this action; and Petitioner's # 78 Motion for Judicial Notice is DENIED as unneccessary; RECOMMENDING that petitioner's # 53 , 70 motions to amend be denied; Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/30/2011. Upon 52 reconsideration, the Magistrate Judge's 51 Order filed 2/17/2011 is AFFIRMED. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/16/11 DENYING 27 Motion for Preservaton of Evidence and for Sanctions; DENYING 42 Motion for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice; DENYING 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING 49 Motion for Extension of time to file a reply as unnecessary. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/10 DENYING, as premature, ptnr's 29 motion for leave to conduct discovery. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/13/10 ordering petitioner's 08/02/10 motion for the reassignment of this case 21 is denied as moot. Petitioner's 08/11/10 motion for his pleadings to be interpreted more liberally 23 is denied as unnecessary. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/29/2010 ORDERING Petitioner's 3 motion for a stay and abeyance is DENIED as MOOT; and Petitioner's 18 motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. (Reader, L)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Garcia v. Clark | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Mario Flavio Garcia | |
| 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: Ken Clark | |
| 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.
