Stallsworth v. Sisto et al
| Deshawn Stallsworth |
| D. K. Sisto and Attorney General for State of California |
| 2:2007cv02466 |
| November 16, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Solano |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Morrison C. England |
| 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
25
ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 3/30/2011 GRANTING 22 Motion to Alter Judgment. The request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. The 21 judgment is VACATED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The Court DECLINES to issue COA. The Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 1/11/2011 ORDERING that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is GRANTED. The denial of parole is vacated and this matter is remanded to the California Board o f Parole Hearings for further proceedings consistent with the decisions of the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence, and In re Shaputis. If the Board of Parole Hearings has not held a hearing within 120 days of the date of entry of this Order, the Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, must release Bowie to parole status. IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Order is intended to, nor may it be construed as, restricting or otherwise inhibiting, directly or indirectly, the authority of the Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to set restrictions or conditions on the grant of parole to the extent otherwise provided by the laws of the State of California. The Clerk of the Court is to enter final judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 7/6/2010 ORDERING on or before 8/6/2010, each party must separately serve and file a brief, not exceeding 15 pages in length, setting forth the party's position on the impact of Hayward on this case, in particular that "[t]he prisoner's aggravated offense does not establish current dangerousness 'unless the record also establishes that something in the prisoner's pre- or post incarceration history, or his or her current demeanor and mental state' supports the inference of dangerousness." Respondent must specifically identify those characteristics, other than the underlying commitment offense, that support a finding that release of the Petitioner to parole status poses a current threat to public safety, and point to the specific evidence in the record that supports that determination. Not later than 21 days after briefs in paragraph 1 are served and filed, each party may serve and file a reply brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing those matters addressed in the other party's opening brief. The reply brief may not simply reiterate or restate arguments or issues covered in the party's opening brief.(Matson, R)
|
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 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.
