Bowling v. Hernandez
| 3:2006cv02477 |
| November 13, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| Marilyn L. Huff |
| Nita L. Stormes |
| 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
30
ORDER Overruling Petitioner's 29 Objections, Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 28 Report and Recommendation, Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 02/26/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mkz) (jrl).
|
|
Filing
2
Notice regarding possible failure to exhaust and one-year statute of limitations. Signed by Judge Nita L. Stormes on 11/15/06. (r1r)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER requiring response to petition. Respondent shall file a motion to dismiss no later 1/5/07. If Respondent files a motions to dismiss, petitioner shall file his motions no later than 1/30/07; or the respondent shall file an answer no later than 1/22/07. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than 2/21/07. Signed by Judge Nita L. Stormes on 11/15/06. (r1r)
|
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: Bowling v. Hernandez | |
|---|---|
| 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.
