Smith v. Martel
| Robert Lee Smith, Jr. |
| Michael Martel |
| California Appellate Project and Michael David Laurence |
| 5:2011cv03062 |
| June 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Alameda |
| Edward J. Davila |
| Death Penalty |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
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
79
ORDER denying 76 without prejudice petitioner's renewed motion to file amended petition. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/26/2019. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2019)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER denying 67 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 69 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on on 12/18/2018. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2018)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING & MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE FILING OF RESPONSE re 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File; 26 Stipulation; 27 Motion for Leave to File; 29 Motion to Amend/Correct. Petitioner shall file his finalized petition on or before November 28, 2012. The Court does not anticipate that additional equitable tolling will be warranted. Petitioner is admonished to file future motions in a timely manner. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/25/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2012)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER Granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time for Briefing Second Motion for Equitable Tolling. The parties agree that the Motion may be heard on an expedited basis. Accordingly, the request to shorten time is granted. Respondent shall respond to the Motion by 12:00 noon on Monday, September 24, and Petitioner may reply to the response by 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 25, 2012. The Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/21/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2012)
|
|
Filing
16
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 13 MOTION for Equitable Tolling. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/10/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER SCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Within forty-five days from the date of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer to prepare, and shall file, a joint case-management statement and proposed order. In the statement, the parties shall discuss their preliminary views of anticipated proceedings in the present action. The statement shall include a proposed schedule for briefing any motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, and proposed schedules for briefing any o ther motions that must be addressed prior to the filing of a finalized petition in the event that equitable tolling is granted. Unless otherwise ordered, such motions will be decided on the papers. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/23/12. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER RE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. John R. Grele is appointed lead counsel for Petition. Attorney Scott F. Kaufman is appointed as co-lead counsel for petitioner. Counsel will provide the Court with a Phase I Budge Plan within 60 days of this Order. Attorney John R. Grele,Scott Frederick Kauffman for Robert Lee Smith, Jr added. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/28/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2011)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER Referring the Matter to the Selection Board for Suggestion of Appointed Counsel re 5 Proposed Order filed by Robert Lee Smith, Jr. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/24/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)
|
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.
