Love v. Knipp
| Dante L. Love |
| William Knipp |
| 2:2014cv02817 |
| December 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Solano |
| Carolyn K. Delaney |
| John A. Mendez |
| 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
45
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/03/15 vacating 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Also,RECOMMENDING that petitioner's request that his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dism issed without prejudice be granted. Petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. Respondent's motion to dismiss 28 be denied without prejudice; and this case be closed. MOTION to DISMISS 28 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/14/15 ORDERING that Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file his opposition to respondents motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition to respondents motion to dismiss within 30 days will result in the courts August 25, 2015 findings and recommendations being submitted to the district court judge assigned to this case for decision. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
38
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/25/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/13/2015 DENYING petitioner's 31 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/26/15 ORDERING that petitioner file an opposition to respondents pending motion to dismiss within thirty days or a statement of non-opposition. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/26/15 denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/26/2015 GRANTING petitioner's 16 motion for leave to amend ; and respondent shall file his response to petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus within 30 days.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Eastern District of CA. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/1/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2014) [Transferred from cand on 12/3/2014.]
|
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: Love v. Knipp | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Dante L. Love | |
| 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: William Knipp | |
| Represented By: | Michele Joette Swanson |
| 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.
