Denham v. Sisto et al
Petitioner: Joe Denham
Respondent: D. K. Sisto and Attorney General CA
Case Number: 2:2007cv00968
Filed: May 23, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton
Presiding Judge: Craig M. Kellison
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
March 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 27 MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 03/09/11. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. CASE CLOSED. (Williams, D)
December 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 12/17/2010 ORDERING w/in 28 days of the service of this Order: 1. Respondent must advise this Court of (a) the date of Denhams last parole-suitability hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings, (b) the decision made by the Board at that hearing, and (c) the current status of any proceedings in the California state courts relating to the Board's decision; and 2. If a hearing has been held, w/in said 28 days, both Denham and Respondent must file briefs, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing the issue of whether Denham's Petition should be dismissed as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, w/in 21 days of the date the brief is filed as provided in the preceding paragraph, the other party may file a reply, not to exceed five pages in length.(Matson, R)
October 9, 2007 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/9/07 ORDERING that the judgment entered on 9/26/07 is VACATED. This case is REOPENED. The Findings and Recommendations 4 and the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations {6} are VACATED; and this matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Kastilahn, A)
June 6, 2007 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER signed by Magistraate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 6/5/07. Petitioner shall submit, with 30 days from date of Order, a complete Application for Leave to Proceed IFP or the appropriate filing fee. Clerk directed to send petitioner a new Application to Proceed IFP form.(Marciel, 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: Denham v. Sisto et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Joe Denham
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: D. K. Sisto
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: Attorney General CA
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?