Atherton v. US District Court, et al
William May Atherton |
United State District Court and Attorney General of State of California |
2:2008cv00555 |
March 12, 2008 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
Solano |
Edmund F. Brennan |
Garland E. Burrell |
None |
Federal Question |
28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 43 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/21/11 recommending that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M) |
Filing 42 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/7/2011 ORDERING that ptnr's 41 motion to appear by telephone or other electronic means is DENIED w/out prejudice. (Yin, K) |
Filing 40 ORDER denying 29 Motion for discovery and 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/23/10: The amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed June 5, 2008, stands submitted for decision. (Kaminski, H) |
Filing 27 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/6/09 ORDERING that petitioner's 25 motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED w/out prejudice. (Yin, K) |
Filing 14 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/14/09 DENYING 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. (Gaydosh, J) |
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.