Espinoza v. Ornoski
Petitioner: Antonio Espinoza
Respondent: S. W. Ornoski
Case Number: 2:1994cv01665
Filed: October 13, 1994
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Marin
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 21, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 288 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/20/2018 RECOMMENDING petitioner's 280 motion to amend be granted; petitioner's 282 motion to stay this case and hold it in abeyance pending CA Supreme Cou rt's consideration of petitioner's pending state habeas petition in case no. S247296 be granted; petitioner be ordered to notify the court within 20 days of a final decision by the CA Supreme Court on his state petition; and the Clerk be directed to administratively close this case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
December 20, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 271 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/19/16 ordering that within thirty days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file any reply to respondents December 12, 2016 statement. If respondent wishes to respond, he may file a sur-reply within twenty days after service of petitioners reply. (Plummer, M)
April 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 266 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/16 ORDERING that by October 28, 2016, petitioner shall file a statement describing the status of these proceedings and proposing a plan for going forward. In particular, petitioner shall address: (a) whether he seeks to file additional or substitute briefs on the 2006 motion for an evidentiary hearing and/or the 2011 Pinholster briefing; and (b) whether existing briefing adequately addresses issues arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). To the extent petitioner proposes new briefing, he shall explain specifically what he wishes to do and why those actions are justified. Within 45 days of the filed date of petitioners statement, respondent shall file a responsive statement. After receiving respondents statement, the court will determine whether to hold a status conference.(Dillon, M)
February 24, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 261 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/24/16 ORDERING that both Ms. Asaro and Ms. Weinheimer have demonstrated good cause to withdraw from their representation of petitioner. Accordingly, their motions to withdraw (ECF Nos. [258 ] and 259 ) are GRANTED. The Office of the Federal Defender, Capital Habeas Unit, is appointed as substitute counsel for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599. See Local Rule 191(c). On Thursday, April 28, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., the unders igned will hold a status conference. The court expects petitioners newly appointed counsel to be prepared to discuss the status of these proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the Selection Boards September 14, 2015 letter to the undersigned. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Kurt Heiser, CJA Administrator, Office of the Federal Defender. (cc Kurt Heiser) (Dillon, M)
February 5, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 260 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/05/16 ordering this case is referred to the Selection Board for a recommendation of substitute counsel. The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order upon Jennifer Mann, Assistant F ederal Defender, Office of the Federal Defender, Capital Habeas Unit. (cc: Federal Defender, Federal Defender Habeas appointment)(Copy of this order served on Jennifer Mann, Assistant Federal Defender, Capital Habeas Unit by mail) (Plummer, M) Modified on 2/5/2016 (Plummer, M).
April 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 238 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/11 ORDERING that within twenty days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a brief onthe impact of Cullen v. Pinholster, on these proceedings and, in particular, on petitioners motion for evidentiary hearing. Within twenty days after petitioner files his brief, respondent shall file a responsive brief. Within ten days thereafter, petitioner may file a reply.(Dillon, M)
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Espinoza v. Ornoski
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Antonio Espinoza
Represented By: Andrea G. Asaro
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: S. W. Ornoski
Represented By: Sean M McCoy
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?