Audette v. Arnold
Petitioner: Carlton Lee Audette
Respondent: Eric Arnold
Case Number: 2:2016cv01256
Filed: June 8, 2016
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Allison Claire
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 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 34 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/1/2017 RECOMMENDING that 15 Motion to Dismiss be granted and 4 First Amended Petition be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after service of these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
August 4, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/3/2017 ORDERING, within 7 days, respondent shall file and serve a "supplemental reply" that addresses petitioner's habeas claims premised on the allegedly improper assessment of hi s prior convictions, as reflected in the subject discovery, and the relevance of these matters to respondent's pending motion to dismiss. Within 14 days after service of respondent's supplemental reply, petitioner shall file and serve his "surreply" in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss. No extensions of time will be granted. Petitioner's 28 motion to compel discovery is DENIED as moot. (Yin, K)
May 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/11/2017 GRANTING 24 Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time and GRANTING 23 Petitioner's Motion for Limited Discovery. Respondent shall file and serve his reply on or before 6/9/2017. Petitioner to file and serve authorized surreply within 30 days after service of Respondent's reply. (Henshaw, R)
February 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/31/17 ORDERING that petitioner's request for extended time, ECF No. 18 , to file his opposition to respondents motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file and serve his opposition on or before March 31, 2017. Respondent may file and serve a reply within 14 days after the opposition is entered on the court's docket.(Dillon, M)
June 10, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/10/16 ORDERING that petitioner shall, within 30 days after service of this order, file an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the form provided he rewith. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner, together with a copy of this order, the following: A new application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and a copy of the original petition docketed on June 8, 2016, ECF No. 1 .(Dillon, M)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Audette v. Arnold
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Carlton Lee Audette
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: Eric Arnold
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?