Cole v. Cates et al

Petitioner: Kevin Charles Cole
Respondent: Matthew Cates and The Attorney General of the State of California
Case Number: 3:2009cv00653
Filed: March 30, 2009
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Irma E. Gonzalez
Referring Judge: Louisa S Porter
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
December 14, 2010 37 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 35 Report and Recommendations. Court adopts Magistrate Judge Porter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Court sua sponte denies a Certificate of Appealability. Clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 12/14/2010.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jah)
October 21, 2010 35 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kevin Charles Cole be denied. Objections to R&R due by 11/16/2010. Replies due by 11/30/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 10/21/2010.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jah) (jrl).
August 13, 2009 10 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Respondent Matthew Cates' 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent Matthew Cates shall file a motion to dismiss by 9/9/2009. If the motion to dismiss is filed, Petitioner sh all file opposition by 10/9/2009, OR, Respondent shall file answer by 9/9/2009. Petitioner may file a Traverse by 10/9/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 8/13/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah) (kaj).
April 9, 2009 4 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Court dismisses case w/o prejudice, because Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. If Petitioner wishes to proceed w/ case, he must submit, no later than 6/8/2009, copy of this Order w/ $5.00 fee or w/ adequate proof of inability to pay the fee. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/9/2009. Blank Motion for IFP t/w copy of this Order mailed to Petitioner. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah)

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

Search for this case: Cole v. Cates et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Kevin Charles Cole
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Matthew Cates
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: The Attorney General of the State of California
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?