White v. Lizzarraga
| Matthew Douglas White |
| Joe Lizzarraga |
| 2:2014cv01797 |
| July 14, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| 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
42
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/15/16 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Referred to Judge James K. Singleton; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/4/16 ORDERING the Custodian to produce at 9:30 am on September 12 and 13, 2016, in Courtroom 8 before Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out-to-Court Desk. (cc: OTCD)(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/27/16 ordering ( Evidentiary Hearing set for 9/12/2016 and 9/13/16 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan.) (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 6/23/2016 ORDERING that this matter is ramdonly referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan to hold an evidentiary hearing, as he deems appropriate, to determine: 1) whether trial counsel communicated the prosecution's plea bargain offer to resolve the case for a 10-year sentence to White and/or whether the prosecutor communicated such an offer to White; and 2) whether White understood and rejected the offer. The appointment of Benjamin Ramos as attorney for White shall continue for purposes of this evidentiary hearing. Once this Court has received the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and recommendation and any parties' objections to the recommendation, this Court will resolve the remaining issue and enter final judgment. Until final judgment, this Court's prior order will be subject to revision in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
24
STIPULATION and ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 4/20/16 ORDERING that Petitioner's opening brief due within 30 days of April 10, or by 5/10/2016. Respondent's brief due within 30 days after that date, or by 6/10/2016.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 1/11/2016 ORDERING CJA panel attorney Benjamin P. Ramos appointed effective 12/10/2015 for Matthew Douglas White. Petitioner's 2 motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 12/08/15 ordering that limited discovery is necessary in this case. The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panel is requested to appoint a new attorney for White for the purpose of conducting discovery on White's behalf and, if necessary, to represent White in an evidentiary hearing. Within 60 days of the appointment of counsel, the parties shall confer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and shall prepare and submit to the Court a joint status report that includes the Rule 26(f) discovery plan ("Discovery Plan Date"). The discovery plan shall include anticipated discovery and scheduling of discovery (including a proposed date for discovery cut off). If necessary, each si de may file a 3 page brief on any discovery disputes by the close of the discovery plan date. Once discovery is complete, the parties shall brief the issue whether White was informed of all plea offers. Once the court has received the parties' discovery plan and considered further briefing by the parties on the results of discovery and any disputed issues of material fact, if any, the court will either order an evidentiary hearing or enter final judgment, and will ultimately determine whether a certificate of appealability will be granted by this court. (See order for further details)(cc: Kurt Heiser, CJA Panel)(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/15 ORDERING that 16 Motion for Extension of time is GRANTED; Petitioner shall file and serve a traverse within thirty days of the date of this order.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER Transferring Case to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/30/14. New Case Number 1:14-cv-0198-JLT. New Case Number: 2:14-cv-01797-DAD. (Gonzalez, R)
|
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: White v. Lizzarraga | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Matthew Douglas White | |
| 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: Joe Lizzarraga | |
| 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.
