Anand Jon Alexander v. Kim Holland

Anand Jon Alexander v. Kim Holland

Petitioner:	Anand Jon Alexander
Respondent:	Kim Holland
Case Number:	2:2013cv09302
Filed:	December 18, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Arthur Nakazato
Presiding Judge:	Dean D. Pregerson
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, 2019	Filing 74 IN CHAMBERS MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish regarding Order to Show Cause. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/20/2019. (ec)
November 19, 2014	Filing 23 ORDER MODIFYING MAGISTRATE JUDGE NAKAZATOS JANUARY 22, 2013 AND MARCH 5, 2013 ORDERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: After conducting this review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judges determination that the original petition oughtto be stricken was neither erroneous nor contrary to law. As a result, the Court overrules Petitioners objections to Magistrate Judge Nakazatos order striking his original petition and accepts that portion of his order.However, as to whether Petitioner has demonstrate d an entitlement to a Rhines stay,the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for his delay in beginning exhaustion of his unexhausted claims such that he is entitled to a Rhines stay. The Court sustains Petitioners objections to Magi strate Judge Nakazatos orders as to the rulings on his entitlement to a Rhines stay. Petitioners motion for a Rhines stay is GRANTED. As a result, the First Amended Petition, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, should be the operative petition. (lc)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 6, 2019

Filing 74 IN CHAMBERS MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish regarding Order to Show Cause. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/20/2019. (ec)

November 19, 2014

Filing 23 ORDER MODIFYING MAGISTRATE JUDGE NAKAZATOS JANUARY 22, 2013 AND MARCH 5, 2013 ORDERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: After conducting this review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judges determination that the original petition oughtto be stricken was neither erroneous nor contrary to law. As a result, the Court overrules Petitioners objections to Magistrate Judge Nakazatos order striking his original petition and accepts that portion of his order.However, as to whether Petitioner has demonstrate d an entitlement to a Rhines stay,the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for his delay in beginning exhaustion of his unexhausted claims such that he is entitled to a Rhines stay. The Court sustains Petitioners objections to Magi strate Judge Nakazatos orders as to the rulings on his entitlement to a Rhines stay. Petitioners motion for a Rhines stay is GRANTED. As a result, the First Amended Petition, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, should be the operative petition. (lc)

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: Anand Jon Alexander v. Kim Holland
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Anand Jon Alexander
Represented By:	David Jonathan Cohen
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: Kim Holland
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?