Dunigan v. Hickman et al
Petitioner: Kevin Dunigan
Respondent: Robert Hickman and L.S. McEwen
Case Number: 2:2011cv00961
Filed: April 11, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Imperial
Presiding Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
Presiding Judge: Frank C. Damrell
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
March 25, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 150 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/24/15 DECLINING to issue COA. (cc: 9th Circuit) (Manzer, C)
February 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 144 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/12/15 DENYING 143 Motion to Vacate Judgment. (Manzer, C)
April 29, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 132 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 4/28/14 ORDERING that the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. (cc: USCA) (Kastilahn, A)
April 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/2/14 ORDERING that petitioner's motion to vacate the judgment (ECF No. 124 ) is denied. Petitioner is hereby reminded that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (Becknal, R)
September 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 116 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/20/2013 ORDERING that petitioner's 114 request to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED without prejudice; the Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the USCA for the Ninth Circuit; and petitioner is INFORMED that he may file a motion to proceed IFP in the Ninth Circuit. (cc: Ninth Circuit) (Yin, K)
August 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 105 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/14/13 ordering that petitioner filed a notice complaining of hostile prison conditions 104 . The court takes no action on petitioner's filing as this case is now closed. Petitioner is hereby informed that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (Plummer, M)
February 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/26/2013 ORDERING that petitioner's 81 request for an extension of time is GRANTED; petitioner has 60 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations; and petitioner's 82 motion concerning his legal mail is DENIED. (Yin, K)
January 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 79 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/23/13 RECOMMENDING that Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
October 4, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/4/12 denying 62 Motion for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner is again reminded that if he is being subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, he may file a separate civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dillon, M)
June 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/26/12. Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On 6/20/12, petitioner filed a document indicating that prison officials are interfering with his ability to attend group therapy sessions. 51 . Petitioner is again reminded that if he is being subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, he may file a separate civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Meuleman, A)
December 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/1/11 ORDERING that if petitioner is being subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, he may file a separate civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If petitioners ability to litigate this case is being hindered due to inadequate law library access, he may so inform the court. (Dillon, M)
May 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/27/2011 ORDERING that ptnr's habeas corpus application is DISMISSED w/ leave to amend; ptnr has 30 days to file an amended petition; and the clerk to send ptnr the for for habeas corpus application.(Yin, K)
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: Dunigan v. Hickman et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Kevin Dunigan
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: Robert Hickman
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: L.S. McEwen
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?