Nathan D. Phillips v. R. C. Johnson
| Nathan D. Phillips |
| R. C. Johnson |
| 2:2022cv05998 |
| August 23, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Steve Kim |
| Fernando M Olguin |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, Related to: Order Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction #10 . IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr) |
Filing 10
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. For these reasons, the first amended petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Judgment will be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (clee)
|
| Filing 9 REQUEST for Appointment of Counsel filed by Petitioner Nathan D. Phillips. (hr) |
| Filing 8 FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Respondent R. C. Johnson amending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 , filed by Petitioner Nathan D. Phillips(hr) |
| Filing 7 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Petitioner Nathan D. Phillips. (et) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (HABEAS) #5 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Court has reviewed the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the "Request") and the documents submitted with it. On the question of indigency, the Court finds that Petitioner: not able to pay the filing fee. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Request is GRANTED. (lom)
|
| Filing 5 REQUEST for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Declaration in Support filed by Petitioner Nathan D. Phillips. (hr) |
|
Filing 4
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Petitioner is thus ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before October 3, 2022 why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to state any grounds for relief and failure to comply with the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. To discharge this order, Petitioner may file an amended petition using the attached Form CV-69 that fixes these deficiencies. Additionally, if Petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he is notified that all claims in his petition must be fully exhausted, meaning they must be first presented up to the California Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). If he no longer wishes to purse this petition, he may voluntarily dismiss it using the attached Form CV-09. Failure to comply with this order may result in involuntary dismissal of the petition for failure to prosecute and obey court orders. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (Attachments: #1 Petition Form, #2 Voluntary Dismissal Form) (clee)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Fernando M. Olguin 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. (sh) |
| Filing 2 Notice Re: Discrepancies in Filing of Habeas Corpus Petition (CV-111). Upon submission of your petition for writ of habeas corpus, it was noted that you did not pay the appropriate filing fee. If you are unable to pay the entire filing fee at this time, you must sign and complete the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support form (CV-60P) attached. You may return your fee waiver and/or payment to any of the Courthouses listed on this notice. If you do not respond within THIRTY DAYS from the date below, your action may be dismissed. (Attachments: #1 CV-60P IFP Request)(sh) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin and referred to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim.(Filing fee $ 5 DUE), filed by Petitioner Nathan D. Phillips. (sh) |
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: Nathan D. Phillips v. R. C. Johnson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Nathan D. Phillips | |
| 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: R. C. 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.
