Norman John Craig v. George Eskin et al
Petitioner: Norman John Craig
Respondent: Judge George Eskin and DA Victoria Johnson
Case Number: 2:2021cv05677
Filed: July 13, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
Presiding Judge: Dale S Fischer
Referring Judge: Steve Kim
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 August 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 27, 2021 Filing 13 Mail Returned addressed to Norman John Craig re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #11 (hr)
August 12, 2021 Filing 12 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 21-55866 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #11 as to Petitioner Norman John Craig. (hr)
August 11, 2021 Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Petitioner Norman John Craig. Appeal of Judgment, #10 Filed On: 8/10/2021; Entered On: 8/10/2021; Certificate of Appealability ruled on 8/10/2021 see doc 9. (car)
August 10, 2021 Filing 10 JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer, Related to: Order Dismissing Petition #9 . IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without leave to amend and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)
August 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Dale S. Fischer. For all these reasons, the petition under 2254 (ECF #1 ) is ordered DISMISSED. Leave to amend the petition is DENIED as futile. See Hooper v. Shinn, 985 F.3d 594, 622 (9th Cir. 2021). Petitioners motion to convert the petition into a complaint under 1983 (ECF #8 ) is also DENIED. Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice will be entered accordingly. In addition, a certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural rulings. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (clee)
July 26, 2021 Filing 8 MOTION to Convert to 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit filed by Petitioner Norman John Craig. (hr)
July 26, 2021 Filing 7 DECLARATION in Support of Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Norman John Craig. (et)
July 14, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Dale S. Fischer 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 CV38 Transfer-in letter, #2 CV111 Notice re discrepancies with IFP) (et)
July 14, 2021 Filing 5 ORIGINAL file, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received from California Eastern
July 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/12/2021 ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Henshaw, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/14/2021.]
July 12, 2021 SERVICE BY MAIL: #4 Order served on Norman John Craig. (Henshaw, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/14/2021.]
July 1, 2021 Filing 3 CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Zignago, K.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/14/2021.]
June 23, 2021 Filing 2 PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 7/26/2021 (Attachments: #1 Litigant Letter) (Benson, A.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/14/2021.]
June 23, 2021 SERVICE BY MAIL: #2 Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider served on Norman John Craig. (Benson, A.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/14/2021.]
June 21, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against George Eskin, Victoria Johnson by Norman John Craig.(Benson, A.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/14/2021.]

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: Norman John Craig v. George Eskin 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: Norman John Craig
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: Judge George Eskin
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: DA Victoria Johnson
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?