Bennett v. Clark et al
| Mark Edward Bennett |
| Ken Clark and California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility |
| 2:2010cv00214 |
| January 27, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 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
8
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/13/2010 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a US Distric Judge; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/out prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/4/10 ORDERING that Petitioners 6 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended petition; and Clerk of the Court is directed to provide petitioner with the courts form petition for a writ of habeas corpus.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/8/2010 ORDERING petitioner to submit, w/in 30 days, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed ifp or the appropriate filing fee; the clerk to send petitioner an ifp form.(Yin, K)
|
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
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.
