Arismendez v. Muniz
Petitioner: Rolando Arismendez
Respondent: M. L. Muniz
Case Number: 2:2017cv00792
Filed: April 14, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Monterey
Presiding Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney
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
June 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 6/9/21 ADOPTING in full 37 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 34 respondent's motion to dismiss. Petitioner's first amended habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Kastilahn, A)
March 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 37 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/04/21 RECOMMENDING that respondent's motion to dismiss 34 be granted. Petitioners' first amended habeas corpus petition be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. Motion to Dismiss 34 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
January 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/24/21 ORDERING that petitioner file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to respondents pending motion to dismiss within 21 days.(Plummer, M)
September 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/08/20 ORDERING petitioner show cause why the stay of this case should not be lifted within 30 days from the date of this order by demonstrating what steps he has taken to exhaus t his state court remedies. In the event that petitioner fails to respond to this order, the court will lift the stay of this federal habeas proceeding and set a briefing schedule on the 3 claims presented in his first amended habeas corpus petition. (Plummer, M)
March 25, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations in full signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 03/24/20 DENYING 03/07/19 22 Motion to Stay as moot since there was no pending federal habeas corpus petition to stay at that juncture; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 27 Motion to Stay First Amended Petition; Clerk to administratively STAY the 26 first amended habeas petition until further order of the court. Petitioner to file a status report every 90 days indicating what efforts he has taken to exhaust his state court remedies and to file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of any decision by the California Supreme Court. (Benson, A.)
January 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/13/20 DENYING 23 Motion for Extension of time. Also, RECOMMENDING that petitioners motion for a stay filed on March 7, 2019 22 be denied as moot since ther e was no pending federal habeas corpus petition to stay at that juncture. Petitioners motion to stay his first amended federal habeas petition 27 be granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively stay the fir st amended federal habeas petition 26 until further order of the court. Petitioner be directed to file a status report with the court every 90 days indicating what efforts he has taken to exhaust his state court remedies. Petitioner be further directed to file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of any decision by the California Supreme Court. Motions 22 , 27 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
September 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/12/2018 GRANTING petitioner 30 days to file an amended federal habeas petition on the court-approved form. (Yin, K)
June 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/13/18 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 5/7/18 (ECF No. 17 ), are ADOPTED in full; Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12 , is GRANTED; Petitioner's m otion to voluntarily dismiss the unexhausted claims in his federal habeas corpus application, ECF No. 15 , is DENIED as moot; Petitioner's federal habeas corpus application, ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing an amended pet ition within 30 days on the court approved form; Any amended petition must be filed on the form employed by this court and must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form. It must bear the case number assigned to this action and must contain the title "Amended Petition"; the Clerk is directed to send petitioner a new habeas corpus application form. (Becknal, R)
May 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 17 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/7/2018 RECOMMENDING respondent's 12 motion to dismiss be granted; petitioner's 15 motion to voluntarily dismiss unexhausted claims in his federal habeas corpus application be denied as moot; petitioner's 1 federal habeas corpus application be dismissed without prejudice to filing an amended petition within 30 days on the court approved form; and the Clerk be directed to send petitioner a new habeas corpus application form. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
April 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/10/2018 GRANTING, sua sponte, petitioner 14 days to file a response to this court's 12/4/2017 order to show cause as well as an opposition to respondent's 12 motion to dismiss. (Yin, K)
December 4, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/4/2017 ORDERING, within 21 days, petitioner shall notify this court whether: (a) he intends to pursue habeas corpus relief in the Yolo County Superior Court by filing a no tice of voluntary dismissal in this court; or, (b) he intends to pursue federal habeas corpus relief by filing an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition along with a motion for a stay and abeyance; the Clerk shall send petitioner a form 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition along with a copy of this order.(Yin, K)
July 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/18/2017 ORDERING Petitioner to submit, within 30 days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed IFP or the appropriate filing fee. (Henshaw, R)
April 20, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/19/2017 ORDERING petitioner to submit, within 30 days from the date of this order, an IFP application or the appropriate filing fee. (Henshaw, R)
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: Arismendez 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: Rolando Arismendez
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: M. L. Muniz
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?