George Eugene Cross v. Kaplan
Petitioner: George Eugene Cross
Respondent: Warden Kaplan
Case Number: 2:2011cv04383
Filed: May 20, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge: Cormac J. Carney
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LACK OF EXHAUSTION AND TRANSFER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. The Court DENIES petitioner's request for a stay of the proceedings without prejudice. NO LATER THAN JUNE 17, 2011, petitioner is ordered to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, and/or transferred to the Eastern District of California. ** See Order for details.** (ch)
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: George Eugene Cross v. Kaplan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden Kaplan
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: George Eugene Cross
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?