Lao v. People of California et al
Petitioner: Houa Lao
Respondent: People of California and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Case Number: 2:2008cv03171
Filed: December 29, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 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:

Date Filed Document Text
October 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 10/25/11 ORDERING that petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED; and RECOMMENDING that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED; Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
October 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER AMENDING CAPTION signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 10/24/2011 ADDING Tim Virga; TERMINATING Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and People of California. This matter shall hereinafter be captioned: Houa Lao, Petitioner v. Tim Virga, Respondent. (Michel, G)
December 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 32 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/6/2010 GRANTING 31 Motion for Extension; Petitioner has 30 days from the date of this order is served to file a traverse. (Matson, R)
September 27, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER adopting 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/24/10: Respondent's September 4, 2009 motion to dismiss is denied. Petitioner's November 23, 2009 motion to stay is denied as moot. Respondent is directed to file an answer in response to petitioner's April 1, 2009 application within 60 days from the date of this order. (Kaminski, H)
August 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 27 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/11/10 recommending that Respondent's 09/04/09 motion to dismiss be denied. Petitioner's 11/23/09 motion to stay be denied as moot. Respondent be directed to f ile an answer in response to petitioner's 04/01/09 application within 60 days from the date of this order. Petitioner be directed that his reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days of service of an answer. MOTION to DISMISS 19 and motion to stay 24 referred to Judge Morrison C. England. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Lao v. People of California et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Houa Lao
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: People of California
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?