Mason v. Paramo et al
| Michael Baraka Mason |
| Daniel Paramo and Kamala Harris |
| 3:2016cv01176 |
| May 13, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Mitchell D. Dembin |
| Janis L. Sammartino |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
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
36
CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Court adopts Judge Dembin's Report and Recommendation, and denies Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus. (mpl)
|
|
Filing
34
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of United States Magistrate Judge re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Michael Baraka Mason. Objections to R&R are due by 4/13/2018. Replies are due by 4/20/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 3/14/2018.(mpl)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER (1) Adopting 26 Report and Recommendation; And (2) Granting in part 18 Motion to Dismiss. It is ordered that the Court (1) Overrules petitioner's objections and (2) Adopts the relevant portions of Judge Dembin's R&R, and (3) Grants in part Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court dismi8sses with prejudice only ground two of the Petition. Petitioner may proceed with ground one of his Petition in this Court. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/6/2017. (dxj)
|
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
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.
