Richard Atencio v. James E Tilton

Richard Atencio v. James E Tilton

Petitioner:	Richard Atencio
Respondent:	James E Tilton
Case Number:	2:2009cv01286
Filed:	February 24, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County:	Monterey
Presiding Judge:	Pregerson
Presiding Judge:	Rosenberg
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
August 18, 2009	Filing 7 JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Related to: R&R Adopting Report and Recommendations, 6 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). Pursuant to the order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition in this matter is denied and dismissed with prejudice. (mp)
February 26, 2009	Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/30/2009. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before March 30, 2009, Petitioner shall show cause, if there be any, why this Court should not recommen d dismissal with prejudice of the petition based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner's response must explain why his petition is not barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner is also advised that if he fails to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the District Court dismiss the petition, with prejudice, based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 18, 2009

Filing 7 JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Related to: R&R Adopting Report and Recommendations, 6 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). Pursuant to the order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition in this matter is denied and dismissed with prejudice. (mp)

February 26, 2009

Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/30/2009. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before March 30, 2009, Petitioner shall show cause, if there be any, why this Court should not recommen d dismissal with prejudice of the petition based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner's response must explain why his petition is not barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner is also advised that if he fails to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the District Court dismiss the petition, with prejudice, based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. (See Order for details.) (mp)

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: Richard Atencio v. James E Tilton
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Richard Atencio
Represented By:	Carla J Johnson
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: James E Tilton
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?