Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard v. Avenal State Prison
| Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard |
| Avenal State Prison and M. Gamboa |
| 5:2023cv02164 |
| October 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Eastern Division - Riverside Office |
| John D Early |
| Wesley L Hsu |
| 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 February 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge John D. Early, Order Granting Petitioner's Extension Request (Dkt. 10). Petitioner shall have until January 10, 2023, in which to file any Objection to the Report. #10 (mba) |
| Filing 12 Report and Recommendation RESPONSE, re: Report and Recommendation #9 filed by Petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard.(hr) |
| Filing 10 Report and Recommendation OBJECTION/EXTENSION, re: Report and Recommendation #9 , filed by Petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard.(hr) Modified on 12/8/2023 (mba). |
| Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue and order: (1) approving and accepting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. Re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254). (mba) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. Objections to R&R due by 12/11/2023. (mba) |
| Filing 7 FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Respondent M. Gamboa, amending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus #1 , filed by Petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard. Party Avenal State Prison terminated. (hr) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause #5 filed by Petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard (hr) |
Filing 5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed under Habeas Rule 4 for the reasons stated above.(see document for details) (Attachments: #1 Blank State Habeas Petition) (mba)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Wesley L. Hsu and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early, 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. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard. The petitioner does not consent. (ghap) |
| Filing 2 Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard. (ghap) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (28:2254) Case assigned to Judge Wesley L. Hsu and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early.(Filing fee $ 5: FEE DUE.), filed by petitioner Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard. (ghap) |
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
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.
