Claiborne v. Sisto et al
| Kevin Claiborne |
| D. K. Sisto, California Board of Parole Hearings and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation |
| 2:2008cv01626 |
| July 15, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Solano |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/8/2011 RECOMMENDING that ptnr's 1 request for an evidentiary hearing and his application for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/5/09 ORDERING that petitioner's 6 request for leave to proceed ifp is GRANTED; petitioner's 1 request for appointment of counsel is DENIED w/out prejudice; respondent to file a res ponse to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus w/in 60 days; reply due w/in 30 days of answer; if response is a motion, opposition or statement of non-opposition due w/in 30 days of motion, reply due w/in 15 days thereafter; and clerk to serve a copy of this order along w/ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the consent form on Michael Patrick Farrell. (Yin, 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.
