Laforte v. Godwin, et al
| Peter Patrick Laforte |
| R. Godwin and Xavier Becerra |
| 3:2022cv00069 |
| January 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Michael M Anello |
| Nita L Stormes |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
Request to Disregard #4 First Amended Petition and Use #1 Original Petition by Peter Patrick Laforte (smy1)
|
|
Filing 11
REQUEST to Withdraw First Amended Petition by Peter Patrick Laforte re #4 Amended Petition (smy1)
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Peter Patrick Laforte. (smy1)
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE of Appearance by Lise S Jacobson on behalf of R. Godwin (Jacobson, Lise)Attorney Lise S Jacobson added to party R. Godwin(pty:res) (tcf).
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER REOPENING CASE and Setting Briefing Schedule. Respondent shall file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases no later than 4/11/2022. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file his opposition, if any, to the motion no later than 5/11/2022. If Respondent does not contend that the Petition can be decided without the Court reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims, Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the Petition, as well as points and authorities in support of such answer, no later than 4/11/2022. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than 5/11/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 2/7/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
|
|
Filing 7
Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number CAS135830, Paid on 2/4/2022 Re Doc #6 (smy1)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER Denying #5 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Petition without Prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner may submit a copy of this order along with the requisite fee no later than 3/21/2022. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/27/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
|
|
Filing 5
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Peter Patrick Laforte. (smy1)
|
|
Filing 4
FIRST AMENDED PETITION against Xavier Becerra, R. Godwin, filed by Peter Patrick Laforte. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit A) (smy1).
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER Denying #2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Petition. The Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. Petitioner may submit a copy of this order along with the requisite fee no later than 3/21/2022, to have the case reopened. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/21/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Peter Patrick Laforte. (smy1)(jms).
|
|
Filing 1
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against R. Godwin and X. Becerra (Filing fee $ 5 not paid, IFP filed.), filed by Peter Patrick Laforte. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Table of Contents, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit A)The new case number is 3:22-cv-69-MMA-NLS. Judge Michael M. Anello and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes are assigned to the case.(smy1) (jms). Modified on 1/25/2022 to add respondent(smy1).
|
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 Southern 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
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.
