Queen v. Cate

Queen v. Cate

Petitioner:	Bradley Dwayne Queen
Respondent:	Matthew Cate
Case Number:	3:2009cv01804
Filed:	August 19, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	San Diego Office
County:	Lassen
Presiding Judge:	Ruben B. Brooks
Presiding Judge:	Irma E. Gonzalez
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 13, 2010	Filing 22 ORDER denying Petitioner's 7 Motion to Stay and Abeyance. Court adopts Magistrate Judge Brooks' 18 Report and Recommendations, rejects Petitioner's Objections to the Report. Court dismisses the First Amended Petition for Writ of Ha beas Corpus as to the 2nd and 3rd grounds for relief, which are unexhausted. Respondent may file a answer to the Petition in response to Petitioner's 1st ground for relief, within 45 days of the filing of this Order. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than 30 days after the filing date of the answer. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 5/13/2010. (jah)
August 26, 2009	Filing 2 Order Requiring Response to Petition. Respondent shall file a Motion to Dismiss by 10/19/2009. If Motion to dismiss is filed, Petitioner shall file Opposition by 11/18/2009 OR Answer by Respondent due 11/3/2009. Traverse by Petitioner due 12/3/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 8/26/2009. (jah) (jrl).

Date Filed

Document Text

May 13, 2010

Filing 22 ORDER denying Petitioner's 7 Motion to Stay and Abeyance. Court adopts Magistrate Judge Brooks' 18 Report and Recommendations, rejects Petitioner's Objections to the Report. Court dismisses the First Amended Petition for Writ of Ha beas Corpus as to the 2nd and 3rd grounds for relief, which are unexhausted. Respondent may file a answer to the Petition in response to Petitioner's 1st ground for relief, within 45 days of the filing of this Order. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than 30 days after the filing date of the answer. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 5/13/2010. (jah)

August 26, 2009

Filing 2 Order Requiring Response to Petition. Respondent shall file a Motion to Dismiss by 10/19/2009. If Motion to dismiss is filed, Petitioner shall file Opposition by 11/18/2009 OR Answer by Respondent due 11/3/2009. Traverse by Petitioner due 12/3/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 8/26/2009. (jah) (jrl).

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: Queen v. Cate
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Bradley Dwayne Queen
Represented By:	John Owen Lanahan
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: Matthew Cate
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.

Why Is My Information Online?