Gregory Vincent Sapp Sr. v. J. Marshall

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Gregory Vincent Sapp Sr. v. J. Marshall

Gregory Vincent Sapp Sr. v. J. Marshall

Petitioner:	Gregory Vincent Sapp, Sr
Respondent:	J. Marshall
Case Number:	2:2008cv03997
Filed:	June 18, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County:	San Luis Obispo
Presiding Judge:	Mumm
Presiding Judge:	Snyder
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
January 13, 2011	Filing 65 JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)
January 14, 2010	Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: Report and Recommendation (Issued) 21 - by District Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the portions of Ground One asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) counsels failure to research the arresting officers reason for stopping petitioner or for searching his vehicle and (2) counsels failure to clearly inform petitioner of the so-called two strikes he was fa cing and the portion of Ground Two that alleges that the trial judge abused his discretion by stating that petitioner took additional time to consult with counsel during his plea and then acknowledged that he had enough time to speak with counsel are dismissed for failure to exhaust. (sl)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 13, 2011

Filing 65 JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)

January 14, 2010

Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: Report and Recommendation (Issued) 21 - by District Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the portions of Ground One asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) counsels failure to research the arresting officers reason for stopping petitioner or for searching his vehicle and (2) counsels failure to clearly inform petitioner of the so-called two strikes he was fa cing and the portion of Ground Two that alleges that the trial judge abused his discretion by stating that petitioner took additional time to consult with counsel during his plea and then acknowledged that he had enough time to speak with counsel are dismissed for failure to exhaust. (sl)

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

Search for this case: Gregory Vincent Sapp Sr. v. J. Marshall
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: J. Marshall
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 ]
Petitioner: Gregory Vincent Sapp, Sr
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?