Harris v. Gipson
| William James Harris |
| Tim Virga |
| 2:2012cv02846 |
| November 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Lawrence K. Karlton |
| John F. Moulds |
| 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
51
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/25/15 ORDERING that Petitioner's 48 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The court order 42 , and the judgment 43 are VACATED. The findings and recommendations 37 are adopted in full , with the following correction: in footnote 6 on page 5 at line 22, the text should reflect that petitioner's conviction became final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (A) on 5/1/00. Respondent's 15 Motion to Dismiss is gran ted. Petitioner's Motion for Discovery 25 is denied. Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record 32 is denied. Petitioner's motion styled as "Motion and Request for Service of Subpoena Duces Tecums" 33 is denied. Petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing 35 is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment on this order and close this case. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/17/14 ORDERING that petitioners request for an extension of time to file a request for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 45 ) is DENIED as moot.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
43
JUDGMENT dated *4/21/2014* pursuant to order, signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2014. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/3/2014 DIRECTING the Clerk to change the name of respondent to Connie Gipson; and RECOMMENDING that respondent's 15 motion to dismiss be granted in full; p etitioner's 25 motion for discovery be denied; petitioner's 32 motion to expand the record be denied; petitioner's 33 motion styled as "Motion and Request for Service of Subpoena Duces Tecums" be denied; petitioner's 35 motion for an evidentiary hearing be denied; and the Clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 21 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/11/2012 ORDERING petitioner to submit, within 30 days, an affidavit to proceed ifp or the appropriate filing fee; and the Clerk to send petitioner an ifp form.(Yin, K)
|
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: Harris v. Gipson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: William James Harris | |
| 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: Tim Virga | |
| Represented By: | Brian George Smiley |
| 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.
