Staffiero vs. Clark, et al.,
| Paul Staffiero |
| Ken Clark, John Monday and Board of Parole Hearings |
| 2:2007cv01657 |
| August 13, 2007 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Kings |
| Frank C. Damrell |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
47
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 05/06/10 recommending that the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed as moot. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER striking 40 Motion not to dismiss action and motion to grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 05/05/10. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 02/10/10 ordering petitioner shall show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this order why this petition should not be dismissed as moot given petitioner's release from custody on parole. Respondents may file a response within 15 days after service of petitioner's brief. Petitioner may file a reply within 10 days after service of any response by respondents. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/27/09 ORDERING that appointed counsel is directed to file a report within 45 days, or within 15 days of a final decision by the governor, whichever occurs first, advising the court on the status of parole. If counsel advises the court that the decision to grant petitioner parole has become final and that petition will be released on parole, counsel shall also advise whether petitioner will be filing a request for voluntary dismissal of this action.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/6/09 ORDERING that petitioner's 31 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as unnecessary; petitioner is also advised that the court cannot consider pro se filings as he is represented by counsel. (Yin, K)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
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.
