Williams v. Paramo
| Frank J. Williams |
| D. Paramo |
| 2:2013cv00417 |
| March 1, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Fresno |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| 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
34
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 01/24/2022 ADOPTING 33 Findings and Recommendations in full; DISMISSING this action without prejudice. The Court DECLINES to issue COA. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)
|
|
Filing
33
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/22/21 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/17/14 partially granting 29 Motion to Stay. This action is stayed pursuant to Kelly v. Small pending exhaustion of state court remedies on petitioner's unexhausted claims. Petitioner i s directed to file in this court, every 90 days commencing with the filing date of this order, a status report that details petitioner's progress in exhausting his unexhausted claims in the state courts. Petitioner is directed to file in this c ourt, within 30 days after the California Supreme Court issues a final order resolving petitioner's unexhausted claims, a motion requesting that the instant stay be lifted, and that leave be granted to file a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254; petitioner shall include his proposed second amended petition. The clerk of the court is directed to administratively close this case until further order of this court. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/05/14 denying 19 Motion for stay and abeyance. Petitioner's amended motion for stay under Rhines, if any, shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this order. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/20/13 denying 13 Motion for Extension of time. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/17/2013 DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (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: Williams v. Paramo | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Frank J. Williams | |
| 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: D. Paramo | |
| 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.
