Antonio M. Taylor v. USP Warden Milunsic
Antonio M. Taylor and Antonio M Taylor |
USP Warden Milunsic |
2:2019cv07060 |
August 13, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Michael W Fitzgerald |
Steve Kim |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Petitioner Antonio M Taylor. (rn) |
Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of Assistant United States Attorney Gregg E. Marmaro on behalf of Respondent Milunsic. (Attorney Gregg Eli Marmaro added to party Milunsic(pty:res))(Marmaro, Gregg) |
Filing 8 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (Attachments: #1 Petition, #2 Consent Form, #3 Local Rules Digest) (clee) |
Filing 7 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. On August 16, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction (ECF #3 ). On September 16, 2019, Petitioner filed a response to the Order to Show Cause (ECF #5 ). The Court deems the response satisfactory and orders the Order to Show Cause discharged. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (clee) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
Filing 6 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim: granting #4 REQUEST for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (hr) |
Filing 5 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE #3 filed by Petitioner Antonio M. Taylor. (clee) |
Filing 4 REQUEST for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Antonio M. Taylor. (clee) |
Filing 3 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim.THEREFORE, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before September 16, 2019 why the Court should not dismiss this 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Hernandez v. United States, 2014 WL 4180995, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014). If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing the attached Notice of Voluntary Dismissal form. Otherwise, Petitioner must file a timely response proving that jurisdiction under 2241 is proper. If Petitioner files no notice of voluntary dismissal or other timely response to this order, the Court will recommend involuntary dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b) L.R. 41-1. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (Attachments: #1 Voluntary Dismissal CV-009) (clee) |
Filing 2 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. (Attachments: #1 CV-111) (lh) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In Federal Custody (28:2241). Case assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and referred to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (Filing Fee $ 5 Due), filed by Petitioner Antonio M. Taylor. (lh) |
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.