Arturo Rosales Verdin v. Scott Frauenheim
Petitioner: Arturo Rosales Verdin
Respondent: Scott Frauenheim
Case Number: 2:2018cv06821
Filed: August 8, 2018
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Sheri Pym
Referring Judge: Josephine L Staton
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Granting #7 APPLICATION for Extension of Time. Respondent is granted up to and including December 10, 2018, in which to file a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and up to and including December 24, 2018, in which to file an Answer in the alternative. (kca)
October 3, 2018 Filing 7 APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Habeas Petition; Declaration of David W. Williams filed by Respondent Scott Frauenheim. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order) (Williams, David)
September 21, 2018 Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of California Attorney General Office David W. Williams on behalf of Respondent Scott Frauenheim. (Attorney David W Williams added to party Scott Frauenheim(pty:res))(Williams, David)
September 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). Notice: The court has issued a ruling on preliminary review. Pursuant to the Agreement on Acceptance of Service between the Clerk of Court and the California Attorney Generals Office, this Notice constitutes service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. (Attachments: #1 Petition, #2 Consent) (kca)
August 9, 2018 Filing 4 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Josephine L. Staton and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, 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. (lh)
August 8, 2018 Filing 3 **DOCKET BY CLERK** ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Petitioner Arturo Rosales Verdin. (lh)
August 8, 2018 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Petitioner Arturo Rosales Verdin. (Larson, Eric)
August 8, 2018 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (28 USC 2254), Receipt No. 0973-22223213 for $5 filing fee, filed by Petitioner Arturo Rosales Verdin. (Attorney Eric R Larson added to party Arturo Rosales Verdin(pty:pet))(Larson, Eric)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Arturo Rosales Verdin v. Scott Frauenheim
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Arturo Rosales Verdin
Represented By: Eric R Larson
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: Scott Frauenheim
Represented By: David W Williams
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?