Curtis Lee Mays v. Raymond Madden et al
Petitioner: Curtis Lee Mays
Respondent: Raymond Madden and People of the State of Calfornia
Case Number: 2:2018cv10678
Filed: December 27, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Philip S Gutierrez
Referring Judge: Suzanne H Segal
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 January 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 28, 2019 Filing 5 APPLICATION for Relief from Dismissal of Habeas Petition filed by Petitioner Curtis Lee Mays. (hr)
January 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to the AEDPA one-year period of limitation. Instead of filing a response to the instant Order, Petitioner may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner's convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: #1 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)
December 27, 2018 Filing 3 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez and referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal, 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)
December 27, 2018 Filing 2 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT TO PROCEED before a U. S. Magistrate Judge in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), The consent is hereby DECLINED by Judge Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ghap)
December 27, 2018 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez and referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal.(Filing fee $ 5: FEE DUE.), filed by petitioner Curtis Lee Mays. (Attachments: #1 Part 1 of 2254, #2 Part 2 of 2254, #3 Part 3 of 2254, #4 Part 4 of 2254, #5 Part 5 of 2254, #6 Part 6 of 2254, #7 Part 7 of 2254, #8 Part 8 of 2254, #9 Part 9 of 2254, #10 Part 10 of 2254, #11 Part 11 of 2254, #12 Part 12 of 2254, #13 Part 13 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 this case: Curtis Lee Mays v. Raymond Madden et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Raymond Madden
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: People of the State of Calfornia
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: Curtis Lee Mays
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?