Crapo v. Curry
Petitioner: Dale Crapo
Respondent: Ben Curry and Attorney General CA
Case Number: 2:2007cv02554
Filed: November 29, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Presiding Judge: Ronald S.W. Lew
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
February 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER and SECOND AMENDED FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/04/11 ORDERING the 12/28/10 findings and recommendations 22 are vacated. Petitioner's motion to set a briefing schedule 25 is denied. Also, RECOMMENDING that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days.(Plummer, M) Modified on 2/4/2011 (Plummer, M).
December 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 22 AMENDED FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/27/10 RECOMMENDING that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted; Respondent Warden be ordered to release petitioner within sixty days of the adoption of these findings and recommendations if a new suitability hearing is not held; if a suitability hearing is held within that time, the parties be ordered to file status reports within thirty days of petitioners suitability hearing informing the court of the outcome of the hearing. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
November 3, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/02/10 denying 17 Motion to withdraw the findings and recommendations. Respondent's objections to the findings and recommendations are due within 28 days of the date of this order; petitioner may file a reply within 14 days thereafter. (Plummer, M)
October 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 16 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/7/10 recommending that re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted; and the California Board of Parole Hearings be directed to set a parole date for petitioner within thirty days of the date of the adoption of these findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Dillon, 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: Crapo v. Curry
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Dale Crapo
Represented By: Steven Charles Sanders
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: Ben Curry
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?