Antonio Edior Pierre v. Merrick Garland et al
| Antonio Edior Pierre |
| Mr. Merrick Garland and Mr. M. Bowen |
| 5:2023cv02606 |
| December 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John D Early |
| Otis D Wright |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 15, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: denying #8 Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration. The Reconsideration Motion (Dkt. 8) is DENIED. Further, other than a Notice of Appeal or filings relating thereto, no further filings shall be permitted in this closed case without prior authorization from the Court or the Ninth Circuit, and attempts to file unauthorized, non-appellate filings are subject to being summarily stricken. (see document for further details) (hr)
|
| Filing 8 EMERGENCY MOTION for Reconsideration, re Judgment #7 , filed by Petitioner Antonio Edior Pierre. (hr) |
| Filing 7 JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Pursuant to the Order Summarily Dismissing Action, #6 IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mba) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice and Judgment shall be entered accordingly. (mba)
|
| Filing 5 RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause #4 filed by Petitioner Antonio Edior Pierre (hr) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. for the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no late than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed under Habeas Rule 4 for lack of jurisdiction. (Attachments: #1 Blank Notice of Dismissal) (mba)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Otis D. Wright, II 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. (car) |
| Filing 2 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 (2241) #1 (car) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In Federal Custody (28:2241) Case assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early (Filing fee $ 5 Due), filed by Petitioner Antonio Edior Pierre. (car) |
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.
