Crane v. McDonald
Petitioner: Richard Joseph Crane
Respondent: Mike McDonald
Case Number: 2:2009cv00852
Filed: March 27, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Lassen
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/31/11 ORDERING that Case No. 09-1511 EFB P is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; and Case No. 10-2604 EFB P is dismissed w ithout leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners 56 motion to consolidate be denied; Case No. 09-0852 KJM EFB P be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; Respondents 58 motion to dismiss be denied as moot; Petitioners 45 motion for preliminary injunction be denied; and Clerk be directed to close case No. 09-0852 KJM EFB P; referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)
August 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/1/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 1/20/11 40 are ADOPTED in full; Respondent's 9/15/10 MOTION TO DISMISS 26 is GRANTED in part and Petitioner's claims regar ding the validity of the 11/22/05 RVR (denominated in the Findings and Recommendations as claims 1 through 3) are DISMISSED. Respondent is GRANTED 30 days from the date of this order to file a dispositive Motion regarding the remaining parole-denial claim or to answer to the petition; and Petitioner's 10/18/10 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 30 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
April 19, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/18/11 ordering within 30 days of the date of this order petitioner shall either move to consolidate case nos CIV S-09-0852 FCD EFB P, CIV S-09-1511 EFB P, and CIV S-10-2604 EFB P; or show cause why, absent consolidation, Case Nos CIV S-09-1511 EFB P and CIV S-10-2604 EFB P should not be dismissed for failure to file amended petitions in those cases within the time provide by the court. (Plummer, M)
January 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/19/11 ORDERING this action, Case No. CIV S-09-0852 FCD EFB P is related to petitioner's habeas petitions at Case No. CIV S-09-1511 DAD P. Accordingly, Cas e No. CIV S-09-1511 DAD P is hereby reassigned to the undersigned. The clerk is directed to make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for the reassignment. Petitioner's motions for consolidation in Case No. CIV S-09-0852 FCD EFB P Docket Numbers 17 and 29 are denied. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis in Case No. CIV S-10-2604 EFB P Docket Nos. 2 and 4 is granted. The petition filed in Case No. CIV S-10-2604 EFB P is dismissed . Petitioner's claim that he was placed in administrative segregation from 03/20/08 to 09/15/08 is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to petitioner's raising the claim in a civil rights action. Petitioner's claim that he has been deprived of programs he must complete to be eligible for parole is dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended petition identifying the specific parole denial he wishe s to challenge, stating what findings or recommendations the BPH made that underly his claim of constitutional violation, explaining how the alleged constitutional violation impacts the duration of his confinement and otherwise complying with this or der. Also, RECOMMENDING that respondent's 09/15/10 motion to dismiss in Case No. CIV S-09-0852 FCD EFB P, Docket No. 26 be granted in part and petitioner's claims regarding the validity of the 11/22/05 RVR be dismissed. Respondent be pr ovided 30 days from the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations to file a dispositive motion regarding the remaining parole-denial claim or to answer to the petition. Petitioner's 10/18/10 motion for summary judgment in Case No. CIV S-09-0852 EFB P, Docket No. 30 be denied. Motion to Dismiss 26 and motion for summary judgment 30 referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
September 14, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/13/2010 ORDERING, as provided in the 6/16/10 order, ptnr to file his reply w/in 30 days of respondent's answer. (Yin, K)
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: Crane v. McDonald
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Richard Joseph Crane
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: Mike McDonald
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?