Singer v. Board of Prison Terms et al
| D. K. Sisto |
| Dana L Singer |
| Board of Prison Terms |
| 2:2008cv00048 |
| January 8, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| 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
26
ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 2/28/11 ORDERING that the Motion to Amend Judgment or deny petition as moot at Docket No. 24 is granted. It is further ordered that the judgment entered at Docket No. 23 is vacated and that petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 12/1/2010 ORDERING the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28:2254 is GRANTED; the denial of parole is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the CA Board of Parole Hea rings for further proceedings consistent with the decisions of the CA Supreme Court in IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, if the Board of Parole Hearings has not held a hearing within 120 days of the date of entry of this Order, the Secretary, CDCR, must re lease Singer 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, CDCR, to set restrictions or conditions on the grant of parole to the extent otherwise provided by the laws of the State of CA. The Clerk of the Court is to enter final judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
17
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, notexceeding 15 pages in length, setting forth the party's position on the impact of Hayward on this c ase, in particular that "[t]he prisoner's aggravated offense does not establish current dangerousness 'nless the record also establishes that something in the prisoner's pre- or post incarceration history, or his or her current de meanor 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 st atus 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.
