Crosby v. Schwartz
2:2005cv00447 |
March 7, 2005 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Sacramento Office |
Edmund F. Brennan |
Garland E. Burrell |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 75 OPINION of USCA as to 70 Notice of Appeal: The decision of District Court is AFFIRMED. (Michel, G) |
Filing 72 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/1/2010 ORDERING that ptnr's 70 motion for COA is construed as a notice of appeal, the clerk shall process ptnr's appeal; and ptnr's 71 motion for appointment of counsel is DISREGARDED. (Yin, K) |
Filing 64 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/14/2010; Petitioner shall file a response to the 8/18/2010 findings and recommendations on or before 9/28/2010.(Matson, R) |
Filing 62 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/18/10 recommending that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Crosby v. Schwartz | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.