Hoover v. Haviland
| Crossan D. Hoover, Jr. |
| J. W. Haviland |
| 2:2009cv01917 |
| July 14, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
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
26
MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 8/26/2011 ORDERING that Hoover's request for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel are DENIED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The Court DECLINES to issue COA. The Clerk to enter judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/11; Petitioner shall file and serve a traverse within 30 days from the date of this order.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 2/10/11 ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations in full. Resp's 15 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Within 30 days, Resp shall file an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
19
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/23/10 recommending that respondent's 06/01/10 motion to dismiss 15 be denied and that respondent be ordered to file an answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. MOTION to DISMISS 15 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2010 DIRECTING respondent to file a response to the petition 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 14 days thereafter; the 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) (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/2009 ORDERING 5 Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; Petitioner's 6 motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary; and Petitioner's 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as duplicative. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/27/09 ORDERING that petitioner shall submit, within 30 days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed IFP or the appropriate filing fee; and Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district.(Dillon, 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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Hoover v. Haviland | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Crossan D. Hoover, 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 ] |
| Respondent: J. W. Haviland | |
| 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.
