Briscoe v. Superior Court of California County of Solano
Darryl Lee Briscoe |
Superior Court of California County of Solano |
2:2010cv02473 |
September 14, 2010 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Sacramento Office |
Solano |
Gregory G. Hollows |
General |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 41 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/22/13 ORDERING that petitioner's filing, entitled objections to magistrate judges findings and recommendations, filed on July 11, 2013, does not appear to be one contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Therefore, this document will be placed in the file and disregarded. (Dillon, M) |
Filing 39 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/23/12 ordering that whether petitioner elects to appeal in this case or not, hu must not impose upon this court further with requests regarding his options. (Plummer, M) |
Filing 36 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/24/2012 ORDERING that respondent's unopposed 34 motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under the AEDPA is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and a COA should not issue in this action. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K) |
Filing 24 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/24/11 ORDERING that the Clerk is to note in docket # 19, that claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are stricken from the first amended petition; Pursuant to the Kelly procedure, a stay is imposed in this ma tter as to the remaining exhausted claim 4, while petitioner expeditiously seeks state court exhaustion of the unexhausted claims; Notwithstanding the stay, petitioner must, within twenty- eight days, show proof to this court that he has commenced the state court exhaustion process(Dillon, M) |
Filing 22 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/7/2010 ORDERING the Clerk is directed to substitute Warden Gonzales as respondentin the docket of this case in place of Solano County Superior Court; w/in twenty-eight days, petitioner shall file briefing, addressing how he wishes to proceed in this matter; and failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action.(Matson, R) |
Filing 15 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/07/10 granting 7 Motion to Proceed IFP. The petition is dismissed with leave to amend, as set forth above, within 28 days. The clerk of the court is directed to provide petitioner with the form for a habeas petition used by state prisoners in this district. (Plummer, 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: Briscoe v. Superior Court of California County of Solano | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: Darryl Lee Briscoe | |
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: Superior Court of California County of Solano | |
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.