Mirek Voyt v. Stuart Sherman
Petitioner: Mirek Paul Voyt and Mirek Voyt
Respondent: Stuart Sherman
Case Number: 2:2020cv08933
Filed: September 29, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Charles F Eick
Referring Judge: Otis D Wright
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 20, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER Granting Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick: granting #17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File. The time within which Petitioner must file opposition to the pending motion to dismiss is extended to 1/18/21. (sp)
November 19, 2020 Filing 17 First APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by Petitioner Mirek Voyt. (Frankel, Breana)
November 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 16 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick: re: #14 . The Court is in receipt of Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss, etc.", filed 11/18/20. Petitioner shall file opposition to the motion within 30 days of the date of this order. At that time, the Court will take the motion under submission without oral argument, unless the Court otherwise orders. Failure to file timely opposition to the motion may result in the denial and dismissal of the Petition. Respondent need not file an Answer to the Petition until further order of this Court. (sp)
November 18, 2020 Filing 15 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Memorandum of Points and Authorities #14 (Attachments: #1 LD 1-PA088150 Docket, #2 LD 2-Voyt AOB, #3 LD 3-B289379 COA Opinion, #4 LD 4-Voyt PFR, #5 LD 5-PFR Denied, #6 LD 6-B298396 PET HC 6.17.19, #7 LD 7-B298396 DEN ORD 6.26.19, #8 LD 8-PA088150 PET HC 7.10.19, #9 LD 9-PA088150 DEN ORD 7.23.19, #10 LD 10-S257508 PET HC 8.19.19, #11 LD 11-S257508 Docket, #12 LD 12-Wende Brief B300477, #13 LD 13-COA Opinion B300477, #14 LD 14-B304614 PET HC 3.2.20, #15 LD 15-B304614 DEN ORD 3.11.20, #16 LD 16-S261448 PET HC 3.23.20, #17 LD 17-S261448 Docket, #18 LD 18-PFR S261820, #19 LD 19-PFR Denied S261820, #20 LD 20-S263173 HC Pet, #21 LD 21-S263173-HC Denial Order)(Inberg, Kristen)
November 18, 2020 Filing 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Respondent Stuart Sherman. (Inberg, Kristen)
October 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick granting #12 Respondent's APPLICATION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Petition. Response due 11/23/20. (ib)
October 16, 2020 Filing 12 APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Respondent Stuart Sherman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Inberg, Kristen)
October 12, 2020 Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of California Attorney General Office Kristen J. Inberg on behalf of Respondent Stuart Sherman. (Attorney Kristen Joy Inberg added to party Stuart Sherman(pty:res))(Inberg, Kristen)
October 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner shall serve upon Respondent or, if appearance has been enteredby counsel, upon Respondent's attorneys, a copy of every future pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. See document for details. (et)
October 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent file an Answer to the Petition within twenty-three (23) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner desires to file a Reply to the Answer, Petitionershall do so within fifteen (15) days of the date that the Answer is filed. 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 for writ of Habeas Corpus) (et)
September 30, 2020 Filing 8 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Deficiency in Attorney Case Opening - optional html form, #7 . Document # 7 Due to clerical error. The docket clerk docketed Notice of Deficiencies in error regarding the Civil Cover Sheet. (ghap)
September 30, 2020 Filing 7 [NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR ISSUED ON 9/30/2020, SEE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 8] NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #1 . The following error(s) was found: The Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)is missing or incomplete. All civil actions presented for filing must be accompanied by a completed Civil Cover Sheet. See Local Rule 3-1. Counsel must file a completed Civil Cover Sheet immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (ghap) Modified on 9/30/2020 (ghap).
September 30, 2020 Filing 6 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick, 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)
September 30, 2020 Filing 5 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner Mirek Voyt. The Petitioner does not consent. (ghap)
September 29, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Breana Frankel on behalf of Petitioner Mirek Paul Voyt (Frankel, Breana)
September 29, 2020 Filing 3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Petitioner Mirek Paul Voyt. (Frankel, Breana)
September 29, 2020 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Petitioner Mirek Paul Voyt. (Frankel, Breana)
September 29, 2020 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (28 USC 2254), Receipt No. ACACDC-28297204 for $5 filing fee, filed by Petitioner Mirek Paul Voyt. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Attorney Breana Frankel added to party Mirek Paul Voyt(pty:pet))(Frankel, Breana)

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: Mirek Voyt v. Stuart Sherman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Stuart Sherman
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: Mirek Paul Voyt
Represented By: Breana Frankel
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: Mirek Voyt
Represented By: Breana Frankel
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?