David Wayne Spivey Jr v. Neil McDowell

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District David Wayne Spivey Jr v. Neil McDowell

David Wayne Spivey Jr v. Neil McDowell

Petitioner:	David Wayne Spivey, Jr.
Respondent:	Neil McDowell
Case Number:	2:2016cv01619
Filed:	March 9, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Philip S. Gutierrez
Presiding Judge:	Frederick F. Mumm
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
January 31, 2017	Filing 20 JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)
March 16, 2016	Filing 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (see attached) Under the allegations and facts of the Petition, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to a later start date of the limitations period. Therefore, and because the Petition does not demonstrate any basis for tolling the statute, or for setting aside the one-year limitation, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this order why the Petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. If Petitioner fails to provide a timely response to this order, the Court will recommend that the Petition be dismissed as time-barred. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/15/2016. (jm)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 31, 2017

Filing 20 JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)

March 16, 2016

Filing 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (see attached) Under the allegations and facts of the Petition, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to a later start date of the limitations period. Therefore, and because the Petition does not demonstrate any basis for tolling the statute, or for setting aside the one-year limitation, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this order why the Petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. If Petitioner fails to provide a timely response to this order, the Court will recommend that the Petition be dismissed as time-barred. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/15/2016. (jm)

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: David Wayne Spivey Jr v. Neil McDowell
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Neil McDowell
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: David Wayne Spivey, Jr.
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?