Bucci v. Busby
Petitioner: Nicola Christopher Bucci
Respondent: Timothy E Busby
Case Number: 2:2011cv03147
Filed: November 28, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Kendall J. Newman
Presiding Judge: Garland E. Burrell
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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 15, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/15/16 granting 47 Motion to Proceed IFP. (cc: USCA, 9th circuit) (Plummer, M)
January 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/21/2016 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 42 motion to proceed IFP on appeal. (cc: Ninth Circuit)(Yin, K)
September 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 36 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/23/2015 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 32 application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
October 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/30/2014 ADOPTING 30 Findings and Recommendations in Full. The 27 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 on the grounds that they are barred by the statute of limitations on procedurally barred; respondent's motion to dismiss claim 7 is denied without prejudice. Petitioner shall file a second amended petition raising claims 1, 2 and 4 only within 30 days from the date of this order. (Donati, J)
August 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/26/14 recommending that respondent's motion to dismiss 27 be granted as to claims 3,5,6 and 8 on grounds that they are barred by the statute of limitations and pro cedurally barres; respondent's motion to dismiss claim 7 be denied without prejudice; follwing adoption of these findings and recommendations, petitioner be ordered to file a second amended petition raising claims 1,2 and 4 only. MOTION to DISMISS 27 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
February 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/20/14 granting 19 Motion to lift the stay. The hearing set regarding the motion for 02/27/14 before the undersigned is vacated. The motion by counsel to appear at the hearing telephonically 21 is denied as unnecessary. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, respondent is granted 90 days to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds; if respondent files such a motion, petitioner's opposition is due 30 days thereafter, r espondent's reply is due 15 days thereafter, and after reviewing the pleadings the court will set a hearing on the motion to dismiss if appropriate. Petitioner's motion to file the amended petition is deferred pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. (Plummer, M)
March 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 17 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/12/2012 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's # 10 motion to stay be granted and this action be administratively closed; Petitioner's motion to stay claim four pursuan t to Rhines be granted; petitioner's motion to stay claims three, five, six, seven and eight pursuant to Rhines be denied; Petitioner's motion to stay claims three, five, six, seven and eight pursuant to Kelly be granted; these claims should be stricken from the petition. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 20 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
January 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 01/11/12 ordering within 5 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall serve his motion filed 01/09/12 on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General and file proof of service. The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General) (Plummer, M)
December 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/06/11 ordering within 21 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file and notice for hearing the motion to stay discussed in the petition. The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus on Michael Patrick Farrell, Attorney General. (cc: Michael Farrell, Attorney General)(Plummer, 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: Bucci v. Busby
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Nicola Christopher Bucci
Represented By: William L Schmidt
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: Timothy E Busby
Represented By: Dorian C Jung
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?