Singh v. Martel
Petitioner: Ashmindar Jeet Singh
Respondent: Michael Martel
Case Number: 2:2009cv01453
Filed: May 27, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Amador
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge:
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 06/27/11 ORDERING that the 30 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; petitioner's objections to the 27 F&Rs are due 07/23/11. (Benson, A.)
May 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 5/31/11 GRANTING 28 Motion for Extension of Time to file Objections to 27 Findings and Recommendations; Objections to F&R due by 6/23/2011. (Meuleman, A)
May 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 27 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 5/3/11 RECOMMENDING that the application for writ of habeas corpus be denied; REFERRED to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; objections may be filed within 21 days after being served with these F&R's. (Carlos, K)
July 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/20/10. (Plummer, M)
May 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/17/10. (Plummer, M)
May 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 16 NON-RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/10/10 ordering the court has determined that it is inappropriate to relate or reassing the cases, and therefore declines to do so. (cc: KJN)(Plummer, M)
March 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 03/05/10 ordering the stay in this matter is lifted and DIRECTING RESPONDENT to File a Response to Petition within 60 days from the date of this order. Clerk to serve a copy of this order, a copy of the Petition and the Order re Consent on the Attorney General. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General) (Plummer, M)
July 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/14/09 ORDERING that 4 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; 2 Motion for a stay pending exhaustion of petitioners two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, claims 14 and 15, is GRANTED and this action is administratively stayed pending petitioners exhaustion of these claims; and petitioner must advise the court within 30 days of completion of exhaustion.(Dillon, 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: Singh v. Martel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Ashmindar Jeet Singh
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: Michael Martel
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?