Harmon v. Adams et al
| Morris P Harmon, Jr. |
| Derral G. Adams and Attorney General of the State of California |
| 2:2008cv01218 |
| June 4, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John F. Moulds |
| John F. Moulds |
| 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
93
MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 8/26/14 ORDERING the Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealabi lity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 705 (2004) ("To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must 'demonstrat [e] that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of hi s constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327)). Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); 9TH CIR. R. 22-1. The Clerk of the Court is to enter judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER ADOPTING 85 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/10/14. Petitioner's Motion to lift the stay is GRANTED; 75 Motion to amend the petition is DENIED and this action shall proceed on the 5/16/11 47 amended petition. Petitioner may file a reply to the 9/16/08 16 answer within 30 days. The court declines to issue COA. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
85
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/7/13 RECOMMENDING that Petitioners motion to lift the stay be granted; Petitioners motion to amend 75 be denied, and this action shall proceed on the May 16, 2011 am ended petition 47 ; and within 30 days from any district court order adopting the instant findings and recommendations, petitioner may file a reply to respondents September 16, 2008 answer 16 . Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/22/13 GRANTING 75 Motion to lift the stay. Respondent shall respond to petitioners motion to amend within 30 days from the date of this order. Petitioners reply shall be filed 30 days thereafter. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/10/2012 ORDERING that petitioner's 62 request to continue the stay of the instant proceedings is GRANTED; and within 45 days from the date state court proceedings are final, petitioner shall file a motion to amend, accompanied by a proposed second amended petition. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 10/31/11 STRIKING AS MOOT 54 Motion to Amend the Complaint; GRANTING 55 Motion to Stay, EXTENDING time to exhaust claims in state court. Petitioner must file a status report within 90 days of the date of this order notifying the court of the status of the state court proceedings. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 07/18/11 GRANTING 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Mark D. Eibert is appointed to represent Petitioner Harmon in investigating and exhausting state remedies with respect to theEastman claim. CJA funding is authorized to investigate and exhaust the Eastmanclaim. Appointment will expire when the stay in this case is lifted. Petitioner to file a status report within 90 days. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 3/30/2011 ORDERING 35 Petitioner has 45 days from the date of this order to file an amended and fully exhausted petition; The fully exhausted petition will be STAYED and held in ABEYANCE; Petit ioner is instructed to file a status report as to the status of the state court proceedings within 90 days of the date of this order; Petitioner must file a motion for leave to amend the petition within 45 days of the final action of the state court proceedings. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER granting 39 Motion for Substitution of Counsel signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 10/27/2010. Attorney Mark D. Eibert shall be substituted in as appointed counsel for petitioner in place of Bruce Locke. (Waggoner, D)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 7/14/2010 GRANTING 33 Motion for 45-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL 8/31/2010 to Advise the Court of How Petitioner Intends to Proceed. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 4/29/10 APPOINTING attorney Bruce Locke as counsel for pltf. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 4/16/10 ORDERING the Federal Defender is APPOINTED to represent petitioner; the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and of the petition on David Porter, Asst. Federal Def ender; petitioner's counsel shall contact the Clerk's Office to make arrangements to copy file; petitioner to notify the court within 90 days of this order how he intends to proceed with this action; the matter will be dismissed without prejudice if the court does not receive notification from Petitioner within the specified time. (Carlos, K)
|
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.
