Saul Bruce Preciado v. Neil McDowell
| Saul Bruce Preciado |
| Neil McDowell |
| 2:2023cv00769 |
| February 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| James V Selna |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| 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 March 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $5.00 from Saul Bruce Preciado. Re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 . Receipt number LA251019. (jo) |
Filing 5
ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION by Judge James V. Selna, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 . The Petition is a "second or successive" petition filed without Ninth Circuit authorization. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider its merits. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is summarily dismissed with prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (es)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge James V. Selna and referred to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth, 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. (lh) |
| Filing 3 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. Re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 (lh) |
| Filing 2 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 Saul Bruce Preciado. (lh) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254). Case assigned to Judge James V. Selna and referred to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (Filing Fee $5 Due), filed by Petitioner Saul Bruce Preciado. (lh) |
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: Saul Bruce Preciado v. Neil McDowell | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Saul Bruce Preciado | |
| 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: Neil McDowell | |
| 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.
