Tyrone Thomas v. T. Allen
Petitioner: Tyrone Thomas
Respondent: T. Allen
Case Number: 2:2022cv04536
Filed: July 1, 2022
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: John D Early
Referring Judge: George H Wu
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 10, 2022 Filing 7 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu, Related to: Order Summarily Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus #6 . IT IS ADJUDGED that the action is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new action if he obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)
August 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge George H. Wu, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new action in this Court if he obtains authorization from the Ninth Circuit to do so. (see document for further details) (hr)
August 10, 2022 Filing 5 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $5.00 from Tyrone Thomas. Re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 . Receipt number LA242336. (jo)
August 3, 2022 Filing 4 RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause #3 filed by Petitioner Tyrone Thomas (hr)
July 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice by filing a written response by no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order explaining that the Petition is not a second and/or successive petition or showing that the Ninth Circuit has authorized review of this Petition. (see document for further details) (Attachments: #1 Blank Notice of Dismissal Form) (hr)
July 1, 2022 Filing 2 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge George H. Wu and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early, 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 CV-111 Letter Re Habeas Corpus Petition) (car)
July 1, 2022 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge George H. Wu and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early.(Filing fee $ 5. FEE DUE), filed by Petitioner Tyrone Thomas. (car)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Tyrone Thomas v. T. Allen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Tyrone Thomas
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: T. Allen
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 [ 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?