Timothy Jetson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al
Petitioner: Timothy Jetson
Respondent: Superior Court of Los Angeles County and Warden Shirley Unknown
Case Number: 2:2021cv04904
Filed: June 14, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Mark C Scarsi
Referring Judge: Karen E Scott
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 4, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of California Attorney General Office Kenneth C. Byrne on behalf of Respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County. (Attorney Kenneth C Byrne added to party Superior Court of Los Angeles County(pty:res))(Byrne, Kenneth)
July 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO HABEAS PETITION by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. 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 General's Office, this Notice constitutes service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. (Attachments: #1 Petition, #2 Consent Form CV11B) (jdo)
July 22, 2021 Filing 4 NOTICE OF ELECTION filed by petitioner Timothy Jetson. (es)
June 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MIXED AND UNDER YOUNGER V. HARRIS by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order, Petitioner must show cause why the instant federal Petition should not be dismissed as mixed and under Younger. [See document for details.] (Attachments: #1 Attach.Notice of Election) (es)
June 17, 2021 Filing 2 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott, 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)
June 14, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E Scott.(Filing fee $ 5: FEE PAID.), filed by petitioner Timothy Jetson. (ghap)

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: Timothy Jetson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Timothy Jetson
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 ]
Respondent: Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Represented By: Kenneth C Byrne
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 ]
Respondent: Warden Shirley Unknown
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?