Armando R. Diaz v. Charles L. Ryan et al
| Armando R. Diaz |
| The Attorney General of the State of Califonia and Charles L. Ryan |
| 2:2018cv09133 |
| October 24, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Steve Kim |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 21, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 JUDGMENT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Pursuant to the Order Dismissing Petition, IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus and this action are dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (clee) |
Filing 6
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. For all these reasons, the Petition is ordered DISMISSED. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has not shown both that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Judgment dismissing this habeas action with prejudice will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (clee)
|
| RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim Re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 . Proposed Order forwarded to the District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald for review. (clee) |
| Filing 5 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE #4 filed by Petitioner Armando R. Diaz. (clee) |
|
Filing 4
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. THEREFORE, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before December 7, 2018 why this action should not be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust, procedural default, and untimeliness. If, on the other hand, Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) by filing a Voluntary Notice of Dismissal. The Clerk is directed to attach a blank Form CV-9, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. If Petitioner does not file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause, the Court may also recommend involuntary dismissal of the Petition for failure to prosecute or obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b) L.R. 41. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (Attachments: #1 Voluntary Dismissal CV-009) (clee)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and referred to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, 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 2 APPENDIX filed by Petitioner Armando R. Diaz. Re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), #1 . (ghap) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and referred to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim.(Filing fee $ 5: PAID.), filed by petitioner Armando R. Diaz. (Attachments: #1 Part 1 of 2254) (ghap) |
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.
