Watts v. Adams
| Chico Romero Watts |
| D. Adams |
| 2:2010cv00277 |
| February 3, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Kings |
| William B. Shubb |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| 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
41
MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 2/8/13 DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and DECLINING to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. The Clerk of the Court is to ENTER judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 02/17/12 ordering that petitioner file an amended petition containing the exhausted claims he wishes to pursue within 28 days of service of this order. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER vacating 22 petitioner's July 8, 2010 motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/20/10.(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/18/10 DENYING 15 Motion to obtain legal materials without prejudice. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/1/2010 ORDERING that petitioner's 18 and 19 motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED w/out prejudice. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 05/05/10 and ORDERING that petitioner's 10 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. This action is administratively STAYED. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/6/10 ORDERING that the unexhausted claims contained in the original petition are stricken without prejudice; Petitioners 12 motion for extension of time is DENIED; RECOMMENDING that 10 MOTION to STAY based on King/Kelly be granted and this action be administratively stayed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/2/10 ORDERING that 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Within 28 days petitioner shall file either a motion to stay or an amended petition containing his exhausted claims only; if petitioner files an amended petition, this action will proceed on the exhausted claims only; 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.(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: Watts v. Adams | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Chico Romero Watts | |
| 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: D. Adams | |
| 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.
