Victor M. Meraz v. Warden
| Victor M. Meraz |
| Warden |
| 2:2016cv01955 |
| March 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John A. Kronstadt |
| Karen L. Stevenson |
| 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:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
49
JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt, Related to: Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 33 . Pursuant to the Court's Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. 48 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gr)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/9/2017 why the action should not be dismissed..Petitioners response to this Order to Show Cause mustinclude either: (1) a request for a n extension to file the Notice of Filing accompanied by a sworn declaration explaining the reasons why Petitioner failed to timely comply with the filing; or (2) the Notice of Filing In Response To Order Granting Kelly Stay attaching a copy of any pe nding habeas petition in the California Supreme Court fairly presenting Grounds One and Two. Alternatively, Petitioner may discharge this Order and dismiss this case by filing a signed document entitled a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal requesting the voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. Petitioner is expressly cautioned that his failure to respond to this order will lead the Court to recommend dismissal based on Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (rh)
|
|
Filing
3
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before April 24, 2016 why the Petition should not be dismissed that is, Petitioner must file, no later than April 24, 2016, a First Amended Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus that: (1) identifies the correct respondent; AND (2) includes specific factual allegations demonstrating that either the Petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) or Petitioner has been diligently pursuing his rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing of the Petition. *See Order.* (es)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Victor M. Meraz v. Warden | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Victor M. Meraz | |
| 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: Warden | |
| 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.
