Chestang v. Cisto
Petitioner: Daniel K Chestang
Respondent: Cisto
Case Number: 2:2007cv01173
Filed: June 13, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Solano
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton
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
January 14, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 01/14/10 ordering that petitioner's motion for reconsideration 87 and amended objections to the findings and recommendations 88 are disregarded as inapposite. (Plummer, M)
December 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/21/09 ORDERING that the 82 Motion for Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED and COA is ISSUED re 83 Notice of Appeal. (Benson, A.)
August 18, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 73 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/18/09 RECOMMENDING that respondent's 49 motion to dismiss be granted. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)
July 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 68 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/9/09 ORDERING that the court will expand the record to include the 67 preliminary hearing transcript. Counsel for petitioner will be afforded 10 days from the date of this order to file any response. (Dillon, M)
January 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 01/14/09 ordering respondent is granted an extension of time to and including 01/28/09 in which to file respondent's reply to petitioner's opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss. (Plummer, M)
January 13, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/13/09 GRANTING 59 Application. Plaintiffs late filed Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss is accepted for filing with the Court.(Dillon, M)
February 1, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/31/2008 GRANTING 26 Request for Extension of time. Petitioner is GRANTED until 2/29/2008, in which to file an opposition to Respondent's 11 Motion to Dismiss. (Reader, L)
June 25, 2007 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/25/07 ORDERING that petitioner's 6/13/07 motion is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this order to file a petition. The Clerk is directed to send petitioner the court's form for filing a petition for writ of hc, and the ifp application. (Kastilahn, A)
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: Chestang v. Cisto
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Daniel K Chestang
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: Cisto
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?