Curtis James Jackson v. W. L. Montgomery
Petitioner: Curtis James Jackson
Respondent: W. L. Montgomery
Case Number: 5:2019cv02071
Filed: October 29, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: John A Kronstadt
Referring Judge: John E McDermott
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 September 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 21, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Return to Habeas Petition (2254), #5 (Attachments: #1 Lodgment 1 Part 1, #2 Lodgment 1 Part 2, #3 Lodgment 1 Part 3, #4 Lodgment 2 Part 1, #5 Lodgment 2 Part 2, #6 Lodgment 3, #7 Lodgment 4, #8 Lodgment 5, #9 Lodgment 6, #10 Lodgment 7, #11 Lodgment 8)(Delgado-Rucci, David)
November 21, 2019 Filing 5 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), #1 filed by Respondent W. L. Montgomery. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Delgado-Rucci, David)
November 8, 2019 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney David Delgado-Rucci on behalf of Respondent W. L. Montgomery (Attorney David Delgado-Rucci added to party W. L. Montgomery(pty:res))(Delgado-Rucci, David)
November 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott: that Respondent W. L. Montgomery file Answer to the Petition not later than 12/2/2019. Notice: The court has issued a ruling on preliminary review. Pursuant to the Agreement on Acceptance of Service between the Clerk of Court and the California Attorney Generals Office, this Notice constitutes service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Motions to Dismiss shall be filed by 12/2/2019. Traverse due by 12/30/2019. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1, #2 Attachment 2) (sbou)
October 29, 2019 Filing 2 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott, 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 CV111 Notice of Discrepancies for filing of Habeas Corpus Petition and Declaration of IFP) (et)
October 29, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254). Case assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (Filing fee $ 5 FEE DUE.), filed by Petitioner Curtis James Jackson. (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: Curtis James Jackson v. W. L. Montgomery
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: W. L. Montgomery
Represented By: David Delgado-Rucci
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 ]
Petitioner: Curtis James Jackson
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?