James Paschall v. R.C. Johnson
| James Paschall |
| R.C. Johnson |
| 2:2018cv10752 |
| December 28, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John D Early |
| Stephen V Wilson |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Return to Habeas Petition (2254) #7 (Attachments: #1 Lodgment 1 Part 1, #2 Lodgment 1 Part 2, #3 Lodgment 1 Part 3, #4 Lodgment 1 Part 4, #5 Lodgment 1 Part 5, #6 Lodgment 1 Part 6, #7 Lodgment 1 Part 7, #8 Lodgment 1 Part 8, #9 Lodgment 1 Part 9, #10 Lodgment 1 Part 10, #11 Lodgment 2, #12 Lodgment 3 Part 1, #13 Lodgment 3 Part 2, #14 Lodgment 3 Part 3, #15 Lodgment 3 Part 4, #16 Lodgment 3 part 5, #17 Lodgment 4, #18 Lodgment 5, #19 Lodgment 6, #20 Lodgment 7, #21 Lodgment 8, #22 Lodgment 9, #23 Lodgment 10)(Delgado-Rucci, David) |
| Filing 7 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 filed by Respondent R.C. Johnson. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Delgado-Rucci, David) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney David Delgado-Rucci on behalf of Respondent R.C. Johnson (Attorney David Delgado-Rucci added to party R.C. Johnson(pty:res))(Delgado-Rucci, David) |
Filing 5
ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. That Respondent R.C. Johnson file Answer to the Petition not later than 2/18/2019. 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) (mba)
|
|
Filing 4
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)ORDER by Magistrate Judge John D. Early, Denying #3 Petitioner's Request for an Extension.(see document for details) (mba)
|
| Filing 2 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner James Paschall. The Petitioner does not consent. (jtil) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254), filed by Petitioner James Paschall. Case assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File filed by Petitioner James Paschall. (jtil) |
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
| Search for this case: James Paschall v. R.C. Johnson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: R.C. Johnson | |
| Represented By: | David Delgado-Rucci |
| 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: James Paschall | |
| 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.
