Hall v. McDonald

Petitioner: Eugene Virgil Hall
Respondent: M. D. McDonald
Case Number: 2:2009cv02552
Filed: September 11, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Yuba
Presiding Judge: William B. Shubb
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 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
December 15, 2010 Filing 28 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 12/14/10 RECOMMENDING that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
June 23, 2010 Filing 26 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/22/10 DENYING 22 Motion to Seal without prejudice.(Dillon, M)
April 29, 2010 Filing 20 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/29/10 GRANTING 19 Request for Extension of time. Respondent's shall file and serve a response to Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on or before 6/7/10. (Williams, D) Modified on 4/29/2010 (Buzo, P).
February 10, 2010 Filing 17 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/9/10 ORDERING that 14 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED; Within 30 days, petitioner shall file an amended petition; 11 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot; Within 60 days of service of petitioners amended petition, respondent shall file and serve an answer; Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the courts form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.(Dillon, M)
February 3, 2010 Filing 15 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/10 ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, respondent shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to petitioners motion to amend and shall show cause in writing why petitioners motion to amend, if granted, would not render respondents motion to dismiss moot.(Dillon, M)
October 9, 2009 Filing 6 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/08/09 granting 5 Motion to Proceed IFP 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. (Plummer, M)
September 17, 2009 Filing 3 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/17/09 ORDERING that petitioner shall submit, within 30 days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee; Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district.(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: Hall 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: Eugene Virgil Hall
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: M. D. 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?