Noe Hernandez v. Raymond Madden
| Noe Hernandez |
| Raymond Madden |
| 2:2020cv04730 |
| May 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 10, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani: granting #6 APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File. Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that Respondent is GRANTED to and including August 17, 2020, to file a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to and including September 1, 2020, to file an Answer to the Petition in the alternative. (dc)
|
| Filing 6 First APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by RE Raymond Madden. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Inberg, Kristen) |
| Filing 5 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Kristen Joy Inberg counsel for Respondent Raymond Madden. Adding Kristen J. Inberg as counsel of record for Raymond Madden, Warden for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Respondent Raymond Madden, Warden. (Attorney Kristen Joy Inberg added to party Raymond Madden(pty:res))(Inberg, Kristen) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION by Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani. 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 Decline Consent) (dc)
|
| 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 Shashi H. Kewalramani, 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. (lh) |
| Filing 2 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner Noe Hernandez. The Petitioner does not consent. (lh) |
| 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 Shashi H. Kewalramani. (Filing Fee $ 5 Due), filed by Petitioner Noe Hernandez. (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
| Search for this case: Noe Hernandez v. Raymond Madden | |
|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Represented By: | Kristen Joy Inberg |
| 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: Noe Hernandez | |
| 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.
