Kenrick Daly v. Leland McEwen

Kenrick Daly v. Leland McEwen

Petitioner:	Kenrick Daly
Respondent:	Leland McEwen
Case Number:	2:2011cv01818
Filed:	March 2, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	David T Bristow
Presiding Judge:	A. Howard Matz
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)

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
November 5, 2013	Filing 64 JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer: Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge 63 , IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the First Amended Petition is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ad)
October 19, 2011	Filing 24 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS MOTION TO STAY by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Based on the foregoing, petitioners Motion for Stay is GRANTED, pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 1. If he has not already done so, petitioner sha ll present his unexhausted claims in a habeas petition to the California Supreme Court within ten (10) days of his receipt of the service copy of this Order. 2. Forthwith upon the issuance of the ruling on that habeas petition, petitioner shall lodge copies of the petition and the ruling with this Court. 3. Assuming petitioner does not obtain habeas relief from the California Supreme Court, the Petition shall be held in abeyance until thirty (30) days after the California Supreme Court issues its order denying petitioners habeas Petition. 8 (am)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 5, 2013

Filing 64 JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer: Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge 63 , IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the First Amended Petition is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ad)

October 19, 2011

Filing 24 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS MOTION TO STAY by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Based on the foregoing, petitioners Motion for Stay is GRANTED, pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 1. If he has not already done so, petitioner sha ll present his unexhausted claims in a habeas petition to the California Supreme Court within ten (10) days of his receipt of the service copy of this Order. 2. Forthwith upon the issuance of the ruling on that habeas petition, petitioner shall lodge copies of the petition and the ruling with this Court. 3. Assuming petitioner does not obtain habeas relief from the California Supreme Court, the Petition shall be held in abeyance until thirty (30) days after the California Supreme Court issues its order denying petitioners habeas Petition. 8 (am)

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: Kenrick Daly v. Leland McEwen
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Leland McEwen
Represented By:	Rama R Maline
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: Kenrick Daly
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?