Darrell Lee Lomax v. Vince Cullen
| Darrell Lee Lomax |
| Vince Cullen |
| 2:2011cv01746 |
| February 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Josephine Staton Tucker |
| Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus |
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
78
BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker: Pursuant to Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003), this Court enters the following Protective Order regarding: (1) documents and materials, including declarations, derived from the trial team or trial counsel files that Petitioner provides to Respondent during the course of this habeas action; and (2) any reference to such documents or testimony in the parties' pleadings submitted to this Court. (See document for detai ls.) 13. This Order shall continue in effect after the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings and specifically shall apply in the event of a retrial of all or any portion of Petitioner's criminal case. Any modification or vacation of this Order shall be made upon notice and an opportunity to be heard from both parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. (rla)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER STAYING EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker as to Darrell Lee Lomax, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the execution of Petitioner's sentence of death and all court and other proceedings related to the execution of that sentence, including preparation for execution and the setting of an execution date, are stayed until final disposition in this Court of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on Petitioner's behalf. The Clerk of the C ourt shall serve a certified copy of this order on petitioner Darrell Lomax; respondent Michael Martel, Acting Warden of San Quentin Prison; Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California; David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General; Sean Kennedy, Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California; Steve Cooley, Los Angeles County District Attorney; and the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (rla)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER STAYING EXECUTION of Death Sentence and Referring The Matter to the Capital Case Committee for Suggestion of Appointed Counsel, by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. See attachment for further information. (twdb)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Darrell Lee Lomax v. Vince Cullen | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Vince Cullen | |
| Represented By: | David A Voet |
| 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: Darrell Lee Lomax | |
| Represented By: | Claudia Pamela Gomez |
| Represented By: | Margo A Rocconi |
| Represented By: | Mark Yim |
| Represented By: | Jessica K McGuire |
| Represented By: | Federal Public Defender |
| 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.
