Foss v. Martell
Petitioner: Raymond Christian Foss
Respondent: Mike Martell
Case Number: 2:2009cv03551
Filed: December 23, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Amador
Presiding Judge: John A. Mendez
Presiding Judge: John F. Moulds
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
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
March 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 124 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/18/2013 AFFIRMING 112 Magistrate Judge Order. (Donati, J)
February 1, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 112 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/31/13 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain Document 109 under seal.(Dillon, M)
October 10, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 106 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/10/12 ORDERING that petitoner's 104 Motion to Disqualify is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
September 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 103 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/12/12 re 102 Order ORDERING This court's order filed September 11, 2012 is corrected at page 2, lines 16-17, to change the word "twenty-one" to "thirty"; and Petitioner has thirty days from September 11, 2012 in which to file and serve objections to the findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2012 (Matson, R)
September 11, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 09/11/12 ORDERING that petitioner's 92 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; petitioner's 94 , 95 , 98 , 99 , 101 Motions for Reconsideration are all deemed timely filed; upon reconsiderat ion, the orders of the Magistrate Judge filed 05/03/12 are AFFIRMED; petitioner's 93 Motion to Defer Objections is construed as a request for an extension of time to file objections to the 05/03/12 91 Findings and Recommendations and, so con strued, is GRANTED; petitioner has 30 days to file objections to the 91 F&Rs with any reply to objections due 15 days after service of those objections; petitioner's 06/04/12 97 Request to Vacate Referral of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
May 3, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 5/2/2012 ORDERING that petitioner's 83 motion for extension of time is GRANTED; petitioner's 3/19/12 reply is DEEMED TIMELY FILED; petitioner's 86 motion for extension of time is GRANTED; petitioner's 3/27/2012 reply is DEEMED TIMELY FILED; petitioner's 66 motion to expand the record is DENIED; petitioner's 67 motion for evidentiary hearing is DENIED; petitioner's 80 m otion to expand the record is DENIED; petitioner's 89 motion is DENIED; and RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 application for writ of habeas corpus be denied; and the district court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
March 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/5/12 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the Magistrate Judge filed 11/14/12 is AFFIRMED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
February 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/16/12 ORDERING that Respondents 73 and 77 motions for enlargement of time are granted; Respondent shall file an opposition on or before February 29, 2012. No further extensions of time will be granted; and Petitioners 74 , 75 , 76 and 78 motions to strike are denied. (Dillon, M)
November 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/10/11 ordering that petitioner's motion to stay, which the court construes as a motion for extension of time, 61 is partially granted. Petitioner shall file a traverse, if any, on or before 12/15/11. (Plummer, M)
October 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/5/11: Upon reconsideration, the orders of the magistrate judge filed February 10, 2011 and June 24, 2011 are affirmed. Petitioner's June 27, 2011 motion for extension of time is granted. Petitioner shall file a traverse within twenty-one days of the date of this order. (Kaminski, H)
June 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/10/11 ordering petitioner's 02/15/11 motion for order directing the clerk of the court to furnish certified copies of respondent's answer to petitioner 53 is denied. Petitioner's 02/23/11 motion for reconsideration 54 is denied. Respondent shall submit within 14 days of the date of this order a list of available transcripts of pretrial, trial, sentencing or post-conviction proceedings; a list of proceedings that were reco rded but not transcribed; and all briefs on appeal and opinions, if he has not done so already. Petitioner's 03/08/11 motion for extension of time 55 is denied. Petitioner shall submit a traverse within 30 days from the date of this order.. (Plummer, M)
February 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/9/2011 ORDERING that ptnr's 33 request for order directing respondent to lodge state record and 33 motion for sanctions are DENIED; ptnr's 45 motion for an extension of time to file a traverse is GRANTED; and ptnr shall file a traverse w/in 30 days. (Yin, K)
October 4, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 10/1/2010 DENYING ptnr's 48 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
August 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 8/9/10 ORDERING that 43 Motion for ruling is GRANTED; 32 Motion for permission to file electronically is GRANTED; Respondent shall respond to petitioners 6/14/10 request for order directing respondent to lodge the state court record on or before 9/2/10. (Dillon, M)
July 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/20/10 denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. (Dillon, M)
June 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/17/10 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge 29 , is affirmed. (Becknal, R)
April 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 4/8/2010 DENYING petitioner's 16 and 20 motions to defer briefing and petitioner's 15 motion to order respondent to expedite the answer. (Yin, K)
January 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/14/10 DIRECTING RESPONDENT to File a Response to Petition within 45 days. Clerk to serve a copy of this order, a copy of the Petition and the Order re Consent on the Attorney General. Petitioner's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED.(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: Foss v. Martell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Raymond Christian Foss
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 Martell
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?