Blankenship v. The Attorney General of the State of California

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Southern District Blankenship v. The Attorney General of the State of California

Blankenship v. The Attorney General of the State of California

Petitioner:	Artemus Blankenship
Respondent:	The Attorney General of the State of California
Case Number:	3:2009cv02414
Filed:	October 27, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	San Diego Office
County:	Los Angeles
Presiding Judge:	Peter C. Lewis
Presiding Judge:	Thomas J. Whelan
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
September 17, 2010	Filing 16 ORDER: Adopting 10 Report and Recommendations; Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; and Denying With Prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court overrules Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation and adopts the Repor t in its entirety. The Court grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Dismisses with Prejudice Petitioner's Habeas Petition. Moreover, because the Court does not believe that reasonable jurists would find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong it declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 9/17/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 17, 2010

Filing 16 ORDER: Adopting 10 Report and Recommendations; Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; and Denying With Prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court overrules Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation and adopts the Repor t in its entirety. The Court grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Dismisses with Prejudice Petitioner's Habeas Petition. Moreover, because the Court does not believe that reasonable jurists would find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong it declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 9/17/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

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: Blankenship v. The Attorney General of the State of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Artemus Blankenship
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: 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	[ 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?