Neal v. Warden of SATF et al.
Petitioner: Robert W. Neal
Respondent: Warden of SATF and Secretary of CDCR
Case Number: 2:2016cv02778
Filed: November 23, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Plumas
Presiding Judge: Deborah Barnes
Presiding Judge: John A. Mendez
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
February 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 105 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/12/2018 ORDERING that Motions: 12 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 59 , 68 , 85 , 86 , and 97 are DENIED as moot; It is RECOMMENDED that 65 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing be denied and the petition be dismissed as untimely. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Fabillaran, J)
November 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 95 SUBSTITUTION of ATTORNEY and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/08/17 ORDERING that the Federal Defender is relieved as counsel and Eric Weaver shall be substituted in as appointed counsel for petitioner Robert W. Neal for the limited purpose of opposing the motion to dismiss, in place of the Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California. (cc: FD-Habeas Appointment) (Plummer, M)
October 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/24/2017 APPOINTING the Federal Defender to represent petitioner for the limited purpose of opposing the 51 motion to dismiss. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the Federal Defen der, Attention: Habeas Appointment. Within 45 days, petitioner's counsel shall file an amended opposition to the motion to dismiss or inform the court that an amended opposition is unnecessary. Petitioner's 47 , 52 , 53 , 59 , 85 , 86 motions for counsel and related motions for reconsideration, and for 68 scribing assistance are DENIED as moot. Petitioner's 65 motion for evidentiary hearing regarding his competence is DENIED without prejudice. (cc: FD Habeas)(Yin, K)
June 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/30/2017 DENYING 45 Motion for Investigation and DENYING 46 Motion for Equal Presentation. (Henshaw, R)
December 7, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/7/2016 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 7 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
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: Neal v. Warden of SATF et al.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert W. Neal
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: Warden of SATF
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: Secretary of CDCR
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?