Gaylord A. McKenzie v. Warden
| Gaylord A. McKenzie |
| Warden |
| 5:2022cv01508 |
| August 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Eastern Division - Riverside Office |
| Andre Birotte |
| Margo A Rocconi |
| 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 November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
MINUTES (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACKOF PROSECUTION by Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, by November 4, 2022, why Claim Three should not be dismissed as unexhausted. The Court will consider any of the following two (2) options to be an appropriate response to this OSC. [See document for further details] (et)
|
|
Filing 6
MINUTES (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIM THREE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi: The Court ORDERS Petitioner to respond to this Order to Show Cause no later than September 22, 2022 by electing one of the following options: 1. Request a Rhines stay and file a supplemental brief explaining why there is good cause for his failure to exhaust; 2. Request a Kelly stay; or 3. File a First Amended Petition, striking Claim Three. [See Order for further details.] (es)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and referred to Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi, 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 4 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by Petitioner Gaylord A. McKenzie. (sh) |
| Filing 3 MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE filed by Petitioner Gaylord A. McKenzie. (sh) |
| Filing 2 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Petitioner Gaylord A. McKenzie. The Petitioner does not consent. (sh) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Andre Birotte Jr and referred to Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi., filed by Petitioner Gaylord A. McKenzie. (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: Gaylord A. McKenzie v. Warden | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Gaylord A. McKenzie | |
| 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: Warden | |
| 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.
