Sum v. Northern District of California
| Brian Sum |
| Northern District of California |
| 2:2009cv02811 |
| October 8, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| William B. Shubb |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| 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
43
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 6/29/12 ORDERING that the Assistant Federal Defender's Request to be terminated from the case and have Petitioner returned to Pro Se Status 42 is GRANTED; The Clerk is ORDERED to send a copy of the Findings and Recommendations 41 along with a copyof this Order to the Pro Se Petitioner at the followig address: Brian Sum, F-20945, CSP Solano, P.O. Box. 4000, Vacaville, CA 95696-4000.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
41
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 6/27/12 Recommending that the Petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 be DENIED. These FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are submitted to U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to these F&R due within twenty-one days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/27/11 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations is adopted in full; and Petitioner's motion to stay and abey 32 is DENIED and to the extent that Claim II includes a federal double jeopardy claim it is deemed unexhausted and is stricken. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
37
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 8/24/11: Recommending that 32 Motion to Stay be DENIED and Petitioner's double jeopardy argument as construed within Claim II be dismissed as unexhausted. F&R referred to the United States District Judge William B. Shubb. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one days. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 3/18/2011 ORDERING that Ptnr's 30 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. The Federal Defender's Office shall remain Ptnr's appointed counsel as outlined in the 2/11/2011 order. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 2/10/11: The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner for the limited purpose. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the federal habeas petition 1 , the answer, 17 , order 23 and this order on FD David Porter. The Clerk is directed to include a copy of the in IFP application to Petitioner. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 11/22/2010 ORDERING that Petitioner shall be granted twenty-eight days to inform the court whether he seeks to (a) stay and abey the federal habeas petition pending state court exhaustion of the u nexhausted federal double jeopardy claim as stated in Claim II of the instant federal habeas petition by filing a motion to stay and abey pursuant to Rhines, or (b) proceed on the instant petition. If petitioner elects to proceed on the instant peti tion on his exhausted claims, the unexhausted federal double jeopardy claim included within Claim II will be deemed stricken and the remaining portion of Claim II will be considered along with the rest of Petitioner's federal habeas petition. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 09/30/10 ORDERING thatrespondent has fourteen (14) days to supplement his Answer in the event that this Court construes Claim Two as also raising a Double Jeopardy claim; andNo extensions of time will be given to Respondent to supplement his Answer pursuant to this Order. (Williams, D)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/5/10: Respondent's request for 30 days to prepare an Answer to the Petition is hereby GRANTED. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/26/09 DIRECTING RESPONDENT to File a Response to Petition. Clerk to serve a copy of this order, a copy of the Petition and the Order re Consent on the Attorney General. Respondents are direct ed to file a response to petitioners application within 60 days from the date of this order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute the name of the proper respondent, Warden Ken Clark, in place of the Northern District of California, in the case docket. (cc Michael Farrell)(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 10/2/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2009) [Transferred from cand on 10/8/2009.]
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Sum v. Northern District of California | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Brian Sum | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Northern District 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 ] |
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.
