Fredericksen v Hedgepath et al
||Anthony Hedgepath and Attorney General CA
||August 12, 2008
||US District Court for the Eastern District of California
||Habeas Corpus (General) Office
||Gregory G. Hollows
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
||28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 30, 2010
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/29/2010 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
|August 14, 2009
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/13/09 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/8/09 20 are ADOPTED in full; Petitioner's MOTION to STAY 15 is DENIED, the unexhausted claims are STRIKEN. Within thirty days of the date of this order, respondent shall file an answer to the exhausted claims; Petitiner's reply is due within thirty days thereafter. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|July 8, 2009
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/07/09 recommending that petitioner's motion to stay 15 be denied, the unexhausted claims be stricken, and respondent be ordered to answer to the exhausted claims. The clerk is directed to assign a district judge to this case. U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell randomly assigned to this action. MOTION to STAY 15 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
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
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?