Benson v. Sisto et al
Petitioner: Frank Kenneth Benson
Respondent: D. K. Sisto and Attorney General CA
Case Number: 2:2007cv02244
Filed: October 22, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Presiding Judge: Morrison C. England
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
November 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 11/1/2011 VACATING 20 Judgment; DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of habeas Corpus. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)
September 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 9/16/10 DENYING respondent's 24 Motion to Stay as MOOT. (Owen, K)
August 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 08/11/10 ORDERING that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED; the denial of parole is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the California Board of Parole Hearings for further procee dings consistent with the decisions of the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence, 190 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2008), and In re Shaputis, 190 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2008). If the Board of Parole Hearings has not held a hearing w/i 120 days of the date that this decision becomes final, i.e., no longer subject to direct review, the Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, must release Benson to parole status. Clerk to enter final judgment. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
April 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 4/5/10 ORDERING that further proceedings in this case are STAYED pending a USCA mandate; should petitioner be released on parole, within 30 days petitioner shall inform the court of the action taken by the board of parole and his parole release date.
January 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER denying 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/06/10. (Plummer, M)
July 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/16/09 denying 6 Motion to Stay pending the Ninth Circuit's issuance of the mandate in Hayward. Respondent is directed to file a response to the petition as set forth in the court's 04/28/08 order, with all dates being calculated from the date of service of the present order. (Plummer, 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: Benson 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: Frank Kenneth Benson
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?