Anthony Alvarez v. Michael A. Smelesky
| Anthony Alvarez |
| Michael A. Smelesky |
| 3:2008cv02422 |
| December 30, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Cathy Ann Bencivengo |
| M. James Lorenz |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
13
ORDER ADOPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing With Prejudice Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Because no objections have been filed, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and dismisses the petition with prejudice. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/24/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj)(kaj).
|
|
Filing
12
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Anthony Alvarez: Recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2009. Reply to the objection due no later than ten days after being served with the objection. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 7/15/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE: The Court DISMISSES the Petition for Petitioners failure to (1) satisfy the filing fee requirement, and (2) use a court-approved form. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later t han March 16, 2009, (a) a First Amended Petition on a court-approved form stating that he is challenging a different San Diego Superior Court conviction than he previously challenged in case number 06cv2112 WQH (JMA), OR (b) a First Amended Petition on a court-approved form along with an Order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Petitioner may file a successive petition with this Court, AND (c) either the $5.00 fee or adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, along wi th a copy of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank Southern District of California First Amended Petition and In Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 1/9/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Blank First Amended Petition form, IFP form, and Ninth Circuit Application for Leave form mailed to Petitioner).(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: Anthony Alvarez v. Michael A. Smelesky | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Anthony Alvarez | |
| 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: Michael A. Smelesky | |
| Represented By: | Attorney General |
| 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.
