Roberts, et al v. Cambra, et al
| 3:2001cv00057 |
| January 10, 2001 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| M. James Lorenz |
| Louisa S Porter |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
66
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as Modified; Denying Petition; and Denying Certificate of Appealability: Petitioners objections are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED herein, and the Petition is DENIED. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 11/23/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mjj)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER Sua Sponte Substituting Respondent: Matthew Cate rep by Attorney General added in place of both Steven Cambra, Jr and Michael S. Evans terminated.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 2/10/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj)
|
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 Southern 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: Roberts, et al v. Cambra, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
