Vasquez v. Muniz

Vasquez v. Muniz

Petitioner:	Enrique Vasquez
Respondent:	William Muniz
Case Number:	2:2016cv02861
Filed:	December 4, 2016
Court:	US 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. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 10, 2019	Filing 15 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/9/2019 RECOMMENDING that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. Referred to Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Huang, H)
February 15, 2017	Filing 13 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/15/17 ordering respondent's consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes 8 is deemed revoked. The clerk of court is directed to indicate on the docket that: a. Respondent's consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes shall be disregarded. Respondent's decline of jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes 9 is duly noted; and this case shall no longer be designated a "consent case." The clerk of court is further directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb randomly assigned to this action. (Plummer, M)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 10, 2019

Filing 15 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/9/2019 RECOMMENDING that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. Referred to Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Huang, H)

February 15, 2017

Filing 13 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/15/17 ordering respondent's consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes 8 is deemed revoked. The clerk of court is directed to indicate on the docket that: a. Respondent's consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes shall be disregarded. Respondent's decline of jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes 9 is duly noted; and this case shall no longer be designated a "consent case." The clerk of court is further directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb randomly assigned to this action. (Plummer, M)

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: Vasquez v. Muniz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Enrique Vasquez
Represented By:	Erick Scott Guzman
Represented By:	Jason Christopher Stebner
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 Muniz
Represented By:	Peter H. Smith
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?