Jovany Rodrigo Rangel v. W. L. Montgomery
Petitioner: Jovany Rodrigo Rangel
Respondent: W. L. Montgomery
Case Number: 2:2020cv00251
Filed: January 9, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Philip S Gutierrez
Referring Judge: Alka Sagar
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 12, 2020 Filing 12 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, ALL PARTIES having consented in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P. 73(b). Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar for final disposition. Any appeal shall be taken before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (rn)
February 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE EITHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus #8 . Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order (by no later than March 12, 2020), Petitioner is ORDERED to file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (see document for further details) (hr)
February 11, 2020 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 Respondent W. L. Montgomery. (Duarte, Ana)
February 11, 2020 Filing 9 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Memorandum of Points and Authorities #8 (Attachments: #1 Lodged Doc. 1, #2 Lodged Doc. 2, #3 Lodged Doc. 3, #4 Lodged Doc. 4, #5 Lodged Doc. 5, #6 Lodged Doc. 6, #7 Lodged Doc. 7, #8 Lodged Doc. 8, #9 Lodged Doc. 9, #10 Lodged Doc. 10)(Duarte, Ana)
February 11, 2020 Filing 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Respondent W. L. Montgomery. (Duarte, Ana)
February 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 19-03-Related Case- filed. Related Case No: 2:19-cv-06381 DMG(AS). Case transferred from Judge Philip S. Gutierrez to Judge Dolly M. Gee for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:20-cv-00251 DMG(AS). Signed by Judge Dolly M. Gee (rn)
January 28, 2020 Filing 6 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Respondent W. L. Montgomery. Related Case(s): CV 19-6381-DMG (PVC) (Duarte, Ana)
January 27, 2020 Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of California Attorney General Office Ana R. Duarte on behalf of Respondent W. L. Montgomery. (Attorney Ana R Duarte added to party W. L. Montgomery(pty:res))(Duarte, Ana)
January 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION (28 U.S.C. 2254) by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. IT IS ORDERED that: Before January 28, 2020, Respondent shall file and serve a Notice of Appearance. If Respondent contends that the Petition can be decided without the Court's reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims Respondent shall file a Motion to Dismiss on or before February 12, 2020. If Respondent does not contend that the Petition can be decided without the Court reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims, Respondent shall file and serve an Answer to the Petition on or before March 13, 2020. (see document for further 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 Petitioner's Consent) (hr)
January 9, 2020 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 Alka Sagar, 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 CV111 Notice re discrepancies with IFP Req) (et)
January 9, 2020 Filing 2 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 Jovany Rodrigo Rangel. (et)
January 9, 2020 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 Alka Sagar.(Filing fee $ 5 FEE DUE.), filed by Petitioner Jovany Rodrigo Rangel. (et)

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: Jovany Rodrigo Rangel v. W. L. Montgomery
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: W. L. Montgomery
Represented By: Ana R Duarte
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: Jovany Rodrigo Rangel
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?