Pringle v. Runnels
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 25, 2011
ORDER denying 92 Request for Certificate of Appealability. For these reasons, the Court finds Pringle has failed to "demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." The COA is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 1/25/2011. (Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals). (akr)
|January 13, 2011
ORDER Adopting in part and rejecting in part Report and Recommendation 79 , and denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Pringle's objections to the Report and Recommendation are overruled; Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 1/12/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
|October 17, 2007
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice, Doc 1; and Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing as moot, Doc 2. The Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner's failure to (1)pay the $5 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2)name a proper respondent. If Petitioner wishes to proceed in this case, he must submit, no later than 12/11/07, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and a First Amended Petition which cures the deficiencies outlined in this Order. A blank IFP and First Amended Petition form have been sent to Peitioner, along with a copy of this Order. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/17/07. (vrp)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?