Lancaster v. Kane et al
| David Lancaster |
| A. P. Kane and Attorney General for State of California |
| 3:2008cv01880 |
| April 8, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Monterey |
| Maxine M. Chesney |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
11
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 20, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2010)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER GRANTING 3 RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 29, 2008.(mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2008)
|
|
Filing
2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, along with the exhibits lodged in support thereof, upon respondent and respondent's counsel, the Attorney General for the State of C alifornia. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90) days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on petitioner's cognizable claims. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 26, 2008. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modified on 9/29/2008 (aaa, Court Staff).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
