Fannan v. The People of the State of California

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Eastern District Fannan v. The People of the State of California

Fannan v. The People of the State of California

Petitioner:	Jeremiah D. Fannan
Respondent:	People of the State of California
Case Number:	2:2014cv01416
Filed:	June 12, 2014
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. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 17, 2016	Filing 18 MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 6/17/16 ORDERING that the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Fannan's claim that his plea counsel's errone ous advice rendered his plea involuntary is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow Fannan to pursue any relief in the state courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk of the Court is to enter judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
June 17, 2014	Filing 4 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/16/14 orderin petitioner shall submit within 30 days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel 3 is denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 17, 2016

Filing 18 MEMORANDUM DECISION signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 6/17/16 ORDERING that the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Fannan's claim that his plea counsel's errone ous advice rendered his plea involuntary is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow Fannan to pursue any relief in the state courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk of the Court is to enter judgment accordingly. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

June 17, 2014

Filing 4 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/16/14 orderin petitioner shall submit within 30 days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee. The clerk of the court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel 3 is denied without prejudice. (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: Fannan v. The People of the State of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jeremiah D. Fannan
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: People of the State of California
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?