Brannigan v. Barnes
Petitioner: Jason R. Brannigan
Respondent: R.E. Barnes
Case Number: 2:2013cv01810
Filed: August 30, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Lassen
Presiding Judge: Allison Claire
Presiding Judge: Morrison C. England
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
September 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 46 MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 9/6/2017 ORDERING the Petition under 28:2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; the Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability; Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; the Clerk of the Court is to enter judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED(Reader, L)
October 28, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/28/14 ORDERING that petitioner shall file an amended petition within 30 days of the date of service of this order; Upon the filing of an amended petition, respondent is directed to file a response to petitioners amended habeas petition within 60 days thereafter. (Dillon, M)
September 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/3/2014 ADOPTING the 7/11/2014 findings and recommendations 29 in full; petitioner's motions for stay of federal habeas proceedings 11 , 27 are DENIED; petitioner is DIRECTED to f ile, within 28 days, either (1) a notice that he elects to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed on the merits of his remaining exhausted claim in the original § 2254 petition, or (2) a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case without pr ejudice; and in the event petitioner fails to comply to elect either option identified above within the time provided, the claims identified herein as unexhausted WILL BE STRICKEN and those portions of the petition disregarded for all purposes. (Yin, K)
July 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 29 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/11/14 recommending that petitioner's motion for a stay of federal habeas proceedings 11 , 27 be denied. Within 28 days of the filing date of any order adopting thes e findings and recommendations, petitioner be directed to file either 1) a notice that he elects to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed on the merits of his remaining exhausted claim in the original 2254 petition; or 2) a notice of voluntary di smissal of this case without prejudice. In the event that petitioner fails to elect either option identified above within the time provided, the claims identified herein as unexhausted will be stricken and those portions of the petition disregarded for all purposes. Motions 11 and 27 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
May 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/19/14 ORDERING that petitioners supplemental motion for a stay shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this order. If no supplemental motion is filed by that date, the original motion will be deemed submitted, and the court will issue its findings and recommendations in due course thereafter.(Dillon, M)
May 13, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/13/14 granting 23 Motion for Extension of time. Respondent shall have an additional 14 days, to and including 05/27/14 to file a response to this court's order 21 . (Plummer, M)
April 29, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/28/14 ORDERING that respondent is directed to provide information within 14 days regarding: 1) the disposition of petitioners requests for access to legal material; 2) any dates since April 2, 2014 on which petitioner has been provided access to his legal property; and 3) any future dates upon which it is anticipated that petitioner will be granted access to his legal property.(Dillon, M)
April 2, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/1/2014 ORDERING that within 21 days, petitioner shall file a supplement to his 11 motion for a stay addressing the court's concerns noted within this order; and respondent may file a supplemental opposition within 7 days from the filing date of petitioner's supplemental motion. (Yin, K)
November 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/1/13 ORDERING that 9 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Petitioner is granted thirty days to file a motion for a stay and abeyance, identifying both his exhausted and unexhausted claims, and the procedure (Kelly or Rhines) under which he seeks a stay.(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: Brannigan v. Barnes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jason R. Brannigan
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: R.E. Barnes
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?