Howie v. Subia
Petitioner: Dennis Ray Howie
Respondent: R Subia
Case Number: 2:2007cv00453
Filed: March 8, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Amador
Presiding Judge: Frank C. Damrell
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
February 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 28 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/16/2011 RECOMMENDING that ptnr's claim that his Sixth Amendment right to constitutionally effective representation of counsel was abridged by trial counsel's failure to interview the medical technician and call her as a witness at his trial be denied. Referred to Judge Fred Van Sickle; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
November 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/9/2010 GRANTING ptnr's 23 , 24 application to proceed IFP. (Yin, K)
October 27, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM issued by by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/27/10 ORDERING the Warden of Mule Creek State Prison to produce inmate Dennis Ray Howie to the 8th floor, Courtroom 27, US Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento CA on 12/8/10 at 9:00 AM for evidentiary hearing before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. (cc: 3 certified copies to Warden/Mule State Prison)(Carlos, K)
September 24, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle on 9/23/2010 ORDERING that the Court grants Mr. Howie's 15 request for an evidentiary hearing with respect to whether his attorney conducted a reasonable investigation. However, the hearing will be limited to resolving two issues: (1) whether the medical technician examined Mr. Howie's hands and (2) assuming Mr. Dollison failed to interview the technician, why he failed to do so. Within 21 days of entry of this order, counsel shall file a joint status report indicating whether the medical technician and Mr. Dollison are available to testify. Assuming they are, the Court will thereafter inform counsel of when the evidentiary hearing will take place.(Duong, D)
March 19, 2007 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/16/07 ORDERING that respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner's application within 30 days from the date of this order. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days of service of an answer. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner's application for a writ on Michael Farrell, DAG. (cc: Michael Farrell). (Duong, D)
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: Howie v. Subia
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Dennis Ray Howie
Represented By: Ralph Herman Goldsen
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: R Subia
Represented By: Justain Paul Riley
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?