Frankie Karen Washington v. Gwendolyn Mitchell

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Frankie Karen Washington v. Gwendolyn Mitchell

Frankie Karen Washington v. Gwendolyn Mitchell

Petitioner:	Frankie Karen Washington
Respondent:	Gwendolyn Mitchell
Case Number:	2:2012cv07808
Filed:	September 12, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge:	George H. King
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
March 6, 2013	Filing 23 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King: IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition in this matter is dismissed without prejudice as successive. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)
November 21, 2012	Filing 15 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE PETITION by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Petitioner is ordered to show cause why respondent's Motion to Vacate should not be granted, and why the instant Petition should not be dismissed as su ccessive. Specifically, NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 12, 2012, petitioner must: (a) inform the Court why the instant Petition is not second or successive, or (b) submit to the Court documentation showing that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), s he properly filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, and that the Ninth Circuit issued such an order. Failure to respond by December 12, 2012, will result in the instant Petition being summarily dismissed without prejudice. See Order for details. (ch)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 6, 2013

Filing 23 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King: IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition in this matter is dismissed without prejudice as successive. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)

November 21, 2012

Filing 15 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE PETITION by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Petitioner is ordered to show cause why respondent's Motion to Vacate should not be granted, and why the instant Petition should not be dismissed as su ccessive. Specifically, NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 12, 2012, petitioner must: (a) inform the Court why the instant Petition is not second or successive, or (b) submit to the Court documentation showing that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), s he properly filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, and that the Ninth Circuit issued such an order. Failure to respond by December 12, 2012, will result in the instant Petition being summarily dismissed without prejudice. **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: Frankie Karen Washington v. Gwendolyn Mitchell
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Frankie Karen Washington
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: Gwendolyn Mitchell
Represented By:	Charles S Lee
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?