Stone v Martel, et al.,
Petitioner: Aaron P. Stone
Respondent: M. Martel and Allison Dunham
Case Number: 2:2010cv03454
Filed: December 27, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge: Kimberly J. Mueller
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
November 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/20/2012 ORDERING that Petitioner's 76 motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is DENIED and any further documents filed by petitioner in this closed case will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (Zignago, K.)
November 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 61 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/17/2011 RECOMMENDING that respondent's 36 motion to dismiss be granted; the 39 5/5/11 complaint be construed as a motion to dismiss the underlying criminal conviction, and, so construed, be denied; and all other 46 , 48 , 56 , 58 motions be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
July 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/13/11 DENYING 45 Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 51 Motion for Relief; DENYING 53 Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Michel, G)
June 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/21/11 ORDERING that the 42 Motion for Reconsideration re Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; the 35 Order is AFFIRMED. (Benson, A.)
June 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 43 ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/6/2011. Upon 32 reconsideration, the Magistrate Judge's 12 Order is AFFIRMED. (Marciel, M)
May 5, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/5/2011 ORDERING that ptnr's 31 request for appointment of counsel is DENIED w/out prejudice. (Yin, K)
May 3, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/03/11 denying motions to Dismiss 19 , 20 . Petitioner's motion pusuant to Penal Code 1494 and 1501 23 is denied. Petitioner's motion for an answer 26 is denied. (Plummer, M)
January 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/31/11 DENYING without prejudice 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (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: Stone v Martel, et al.,
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: M. Martel
Represented By: Robert C Nash
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Allison Dunham
Represented By: Robert C Nash
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Aaron P. Stone
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 [ 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?