Barker v. Board of Parole Hearings et al
| Richard A Barker |
| Board of Parole Hearings and J. Beard |
| 2:2016cv00165 |
| January 28, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| 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
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/2/2017 DENYING petitioner's 9 motion for discovery. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
26
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 02/16/17 recommending that petitioner's motion for leave to amend to add the Eighth Amendment claim 19 be denied. Respondent's motion to dismiss 11 be granted. Petitioner's Ex Post Facto Clause be dismissed as successive. Petitioner's equal protection claim be summarily dismissed. Motions 11 and 19 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 6/22/16 ORDERING that petitioner's motion for leave to amend (Doc. 6 ) is DENIED withoutprejudice; Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 13 ) is DENIED; Petitioner's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 15 ) is GRANTED; and petitioner's opposition filed on June 16, 2016, is deemed timely.(Dillon, M)
|
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
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.
