Smith v. Campbell

Case Number: 3:2006cv02972
Filed: May 2, 2006
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
Presiding Judge: Marilyn H. Patel
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
May 10, 2012 64 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 1 Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/10/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2012)
April 6, 2011 50 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re respondent's procedural default defense: Respondent has not met the ultimate burden of proving that Californias contemporaneous objection rule is an adequate procedural bar that prevents a federal court from reviewing the merits of a habeas petition based on claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner shall file his traverse within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order. In accordance with an earlier order of this court entered on November 24, 2009 at Docket #45 the traverse, which shall address all claims made by petitioner, shall not exceed forty pages and shall comply with Civil Local Rule 3-4; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 4/5/2011. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2011)
September 10, 2010 47 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granting 46 Motion for Leave to File pleading concerning application of state procedural default bar (AS AMENDED BY COURT). (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2010)
September 23, 2009 39 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING 38 Stipulation extending time to 10/12/2009 for petitioner to file a traverse; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/23/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2009)
August 25, 2009 37 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING 36 Stipulation to extend time, to and including 9/25/2009, for petitioner to file traverse; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 8/25/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2009)
June 30, 2009 33 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time to and including 7/31/2009 for filing of traverse; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 6/30/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009)
May 12, 2009 29 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 28 Stipulation extending time to 6/5/2009 for filing of traverse; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 5/11/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2009)
April 24, 2009 27 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time for filing of petitioner's traverse. Signed by Judge Marilyn H. Patel on 04/24/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009)
January 14, 2009 24 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time to 3/5/2009 for petitioner to file traverse; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/13/2009. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2009)
November 21, 2008 22 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time to and including 1/19/2009 for petitioner to file traverse; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/21/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2008)
September 2, 2008 17 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: respodnent to file answer within sixty days; Traverse to be filed within 30 days thereafter; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 8/29/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2008)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Campbell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ 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?