Marroquin v. Curry

Marroquin v. Curry

Petitioner:	Jesus Franco Marroquin
Respondent:	Ben Curry
Case Number:	3:2008cv05779
Filed:	December 30, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office:	Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County:	Monterey
Presiding Judge:	Maxine M. Chesney
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 20, 2010	Filing 5 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 20, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2010)
July 17, 2009	Filing 2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, along with the exhibits lodged in support thereof, upon respondent and respondent's counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. R espondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90) days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on petitioner's cognizable claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 17, 2009. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (aaa, COURT STAFF).

Date Filed

Document Text

May 20, 2010

Filing 5 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 20, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2010)

July 17, 2009

Filing 2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, along with the exhibits lodged in support thereof, upon respondent and respondent's counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. R espondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90) days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on petitioner's cognizable claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 17, 2009. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (aaa, COURT STAFF).

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marroquin v. Curry
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jesus Franco Marroquin
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: Ben Curry
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?