Tom Love Vinson v. Raymond Madden
| Tom Love Vinson |
| Warden Raymond Madden and Raymond Madden |
| 2:2018cv06783 |
| August 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| Alexander F MacKinnon |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 24, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING EXHAUSTION by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the service date of this Order, petitioner shall file a status report informing the Court about the progress of his efforts to exhaust. Within twenty-one (21) days of service of the California Supreme Court's ruling on petitioner's habeas petition, petitioner shall file and serve a notice of exhaustion, together with a copy of the decision by the California Supreme Court. (See document for further details.) #8 (sbou)
|
| Filing 13 REPLY Opposition to Response to Motion to Stay (Doc 11) filed by Petitioner Tom Love Vinson. (Arfa, Rose) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) #11 (Attachments: #1 Lodged Doc. 1, #2 Lodged Doc. 2, #3 Lodged Doc. 3, #4 Lodged Doc. 4, #5 Lodged Doc. 5, #6 Lodged Doc. 6)(Tetef, Herbert) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending State Court Habeas Petition #8 Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Respondent Raymond Madden. (Tetef, Herbert) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of California Attorney General Office Herbert S. Tetef on behalf of Respondent Raymond Madden. (Attorney Herbert S Tetef added to party Raymond Madden(pty:res))(Tetef, Herbert) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon:, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. On 8/7/18, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On 8/23/18, petitioner filed a motion seeking a stay this action pending exhaustion of state remedies. The Clerk is directed to serve respondent with copies of the Petition, the Motion to Stay, and this order. Respondent shall have 14 days from the date of this order within which to e-file and serve a Notice of Appearance designating the Deputy Attorney General(s) in charge of this case. Within 30 days of the date of this order, respondent shall file and serve an opposition or statement of non-opposition to petitioner's Motion to Stay. If respondent files an opposition, then petitioner may file a reply (if any) within 30 days from the date of service of the opposition. If respondent files a statement of non-opposition, the Court will issue a further order as appropriate. (Attachments: #1 petition, #2 Motion) (sp)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending State Court Habeas Petition filed by Petitioner Tom Love Vinson. (Arfa, Rose) |
|
Filing 7
MINUTES (In Chambers): ORDER RE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed a habeas corpus petition raising six claims for relief. According to the petition, three of petitioners claims were presented to the California Supreme Court in a habeas corpus petition and that petition is currently pending before that court. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 8.) Petitioner shall file a response to this order on or before September 10, 2018. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to timely respond to this order may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and/or failure to prosecute. (See document for further details.) #1 . (sbou)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #1 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Attorney Civil Case Opening). (ghap) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #1 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Attachments 1 Memorandum Memorandum of Points and Authorities should not have been attached. Each document should have been filed separately. You are not required to take any action in response to this notice unless the Court so directs. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and referred to Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon, who is authorized to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.4, the Court must be notified within five (5) days of any address change. See notice for additional details. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner Tom Love Vinson. The Petitioner does not consent. (ghap) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Petitioner Tom Love Vinson. (Arfa, Rose) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (28 USC 2254), Receipt No. 0973-22216659 for $5 filing fee, filed by Petitioner Tom Love Vinson. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Exhibits) (Attorney Rose Fay Arfa added to party Tom Love Vinson(pty:pet))(Arfa, Rose) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
