Calderon v. People of the State of California
| Juan Carlos Calderon |
| People of the State of California |
| 3:2023cv05298 |
| October 17, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Beth Labson Freeman |
| PSLC HHL |
| Rita F Lin |
| PSLC MWD |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Case Reassigned to Judge Rita F. Lin. Judge Beth Labson Freeman no longer assigned to the case. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. (kab, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2023) |
Filing 6
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE.IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin in the San Francisco Division for all further proceedings.1. All future filings shall bear the initials RFL immediately after the case number.2. All case management conference dates are vacated and will be reset by the Court.3. All hearing dates presently scheduled are VACATED. However, existing briefing schedules for motions remain unchanged. All pending motions (regardless of whether they are presently scheduled for hearing) must be RENOTICED for hearing before Judge Lin by the moving party for a date consistent with the Courts law and motion calendar, but the renoticing of the hearing does not affect the prior briefing schedule.4. Deadlines for ADR compliance and discovery cutoffs remain unchanged.5. All pretrial conference and trial dates currently set for after March 4, 2024, and all other deadlines associated with the case, will remain in place unless otherwise ordered.6. All pretrial conference and trial dates scheduled on or before March 4, 2024, are vacated. Other pretrial deadlines (eg., motions in limine, pretrial statements, proposed joint trial exhibits, etc.) will remain in place. The Court will notify the parties when a status conference will be held to schedule a new pretrial conference and trial dates for affected cases.7. Matters currently referred to a Magistrate Judge will remain before that Magistrate Judge absent further notice.8. Each party is expected to review and become familiar with all applicable standing orders and scheduling notes.9. On or before December 11, 2023, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement (separate statements are appropriate if either party is proceeding without counsel). The statement should not exceed ten pages in length and should address the following items in the following order: a. Date Filed: The date the case was filed; b. Parties: A list or description of each party; c. Claims: A summary of all claims, counter-claims, cross-claims, or third party claims; d. Facts: A brief chronology of the facts and a statement of the principal factual issues in dispute; e. Legal Issues: A brief statement, without extended legal argument, of the disputed points of law, including reference to specific statutes and decisions; f. Relief: A description of the relief sought and the damages claimed with an explanation as to how damages have been (or will be) computed; g. Discovery: The status of discovery, including any significant discovery management issues, as well as any limits or cutoff dates; h. Related Cases: The status, case name, and case number of any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body; i. Procedural History: A procedural history of the case, including any previous motions that were decided or submitted, any ADR proceedings or settlement conferences that have been scheduled or concluded, any appellate proceedings that are pending or concluded, and any previous referral to a magistrate judge; j. Deadlines: A description of any other deadlines in place before reassignment, including those for ADR, dispositive motions, pretrial conferences, and trials; k. Any modification of deadlines: Any requested modification of these dates, and the reasons for the request; l. Consent to Magistrate: Whether the parties will consent to a magistrate judge for trial; and m. Emergency: Whether there exists an immediate need for a case management conference to be scheduled in the action, and why the parties believe such a need exists.10. The Joint Case Management Statement will not constitute a motion to extend or modify dates. If emergency relief is needed to modify a deadline, and the deadline is not of the type that can be modified via stipulation of the parties without a court order, the requesting party or parties shall additionally file a motion or stipulation for such relief in compliance with Local Rule 6.11. The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. Hearings and trials in any civil case assigned to a judge participating in the Pilot Project are eligible for video recording, upon request and with the consent of the parties and the presiding judge. Please see the #Northern Districts webpage about participation in the Pilot Project and # General Order 65 for more information. IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated: 11/27/2023FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMark B. Busby, Clerk of Court (kab-adi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
|
| Filing 5 PETITION for Equitable Relief. Filed by Juan Carlos Calderon. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2023) |
| Filing 4 CLERK'S NOTICE re completion of In Forma Pauperis affidavit or payment of filing fee due within 28 days. IFP Form due by 11/24/2023. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| Filing 3 ***error***CLERK'S NOTICE re completion of In Forma Pauperis affidavit or payment of filing fee due within 28 days. IFP Form due by 11/24/2023. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) Modified on 10/17/2023 (hdj, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Juan Carlos Calderon. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2023) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Filed byJuan Carlos Calderon. (Attachments: #1 Letter, #2 Envelope)(hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2023) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Calderon v. People of the State of California | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Juan Carlos Calderon | |
| 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: People of the State of California | |
| 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.
