Bruce Senator v. Richard Hill

Bruce Senator v. Richard Hill

Petitioner:	Bruce Senator
Respondent:	Richard Hill
Case Number:	8:2010cv01600
Filed:	October 20, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge:	Stephen V. Wilson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 30, 2013	Filing 79 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. On April 22, 2013, the Court granted in part petitioner's "Second Request for Additional Time to File Objections to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge and Reques t for Certificate of Appealibility [sic]," and gave him until June 21, 2013, to file said Objections. The Court granted the Request based on petitioner's representations that his medical condition prevented him from timely filing his Obje ctions and Request for Certificate of Appealability. On April 25, 2013, petitioner lodged a new action in this Court, Case No. SA CV 13-655-UA (PLA), consisting of a nine-page complaint alleging violations of his civil rights that occurred in June, 2012, and some months thereafter. In light of petitioner's apparently ability, despite his medical condition, to presently prepare legal filings, petitioner is ordered to show cause, no later than May 6, 2013, why the extension of time to file his Objections to the Report and Recommendation granted by the Court should not be revoked, and his Objectionsand Request for Certificate of Appealability be due immediately. (es)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 30, 2013

Filing 79 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. On April 22, 2013, the Court granted in part petitioner's "Second Request for Additional Time to File Objections to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge and Reques t for Certificate of Appealibility [sic]," and gave him until June 21, 2013, to file said Objections. The Court granted the Request based on petitioner's representations that his medical condition prevented him from timely filing his Obje ctions and Request for Certificate of Appealability. On April 25, 2013, petitioner lodged a new action in this Court, Case No. SA CV 13-655-UA (PLA), consisting of a nine-page complaint alleging violations of his civil rights that occurred in June, 2012, and some months thereafter. In light of petitioner's apparently ability, despite his medical condition, to presently prepare legal filings, petitioner is ordered to show cause, no later than May 6, 2013, why the extension of time to file his Objections to the Report and Recommendation granted by the Court should not be revoked, and his Objectionsand Request for Certificate of Appealability be due immediately. (es)

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: Bruce Senator v. Richard Hill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Bruce Senator
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: Richard Hill
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 ]

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?