Steven Aguilar v. The People of the State of California et al
Petitioner: Steven Aguilar
Respondent: The People of the State of California and S. Moore
Case Number: 2:2023cv05998
Filed: July 24, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Chooljian
Referring Judge: Consuelo B Marshall
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 September 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 20, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT AND/OR EXPLAIN MISSING SIGNATURE AND COMPLETE PAGES, [DKT 8] by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (shb)
September 13, 2023 Filing 10 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner Steven Aguilar. The Petitioner does not consent. (rn)
September 13, 2023 Filing 9 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed by Petitioner Steven Aguilar. (shb)
September 13, 2023 Filing 8 MOTION to Correct and/or Explain Missing Signature and Complete Pages filed by Petitioner Steven Aguilar. (hr)
July 31, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 7 AMENDED ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (HABEAS) #3 #6 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshal that As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED because in screening the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court finds that it plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. FURTHER ORDERED that: As explained in the attached statement, because it plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (jp)
July 31, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (HABEAS) #3 [ JS-6], by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: 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: is not able to pay the filing fee.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED because in screening the Petition under Rule 4 of the RulesGoverning Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court finds that it plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: As explained in the attached statement, because it plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, this case is hereby DISMISSED: WITHOUT PREJUDICE. MD JS-6, Case Terminated. (shb)
July 27, 2023 Filing 5 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian, 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. (et)
July 25, 2023 Filing 4 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Filed Document RE: REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support #3 . The following error(s) was/were found: Other error(s) with document(s): Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is missing signature page/incomplete.. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (et)
July 24, 2023 Filing 3 DECLARATION in Support of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Steven Aguilar. (et)
July 24, 2023 Filing 2 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner Steven Aguilar. The Petitioner does not consent. (et)
July 24, 2023 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian., filed by Petitioner Steven Aguilar. (et)

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: Steven Aguilar v. The People of the State of California 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: Steven Aguilar
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: The People of the State of California
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: S. Moore
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?