Rogers v. Superior Court of San Diego County

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Southern District Rogers v. Superior Court of San Diego County

Rogers v. Superior Court of San Diego County

Petitioner:	Tyrone Rogers
Respondent:	Superior Court of San Diego County
Case Number:	3:2016cv01943
Filed:	August 1, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	San Diego Office
County:	San Luis Obispo
Presiding Judge:	Michael M. Anello
Presiding Judge:	Bernard G. Skomal
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
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 19, 2018	Filing 28 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. The Court overrules Petitioner's objections, adopts the Recommendation that the petition be dismissed, and dismisses the petition with prejudice. The Court denies Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
September 4, 2018	Filing 24 ORDER denying 23 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal. As explained above, Petitioner's motion is premature at this stage of the litigation because there has not been a final order or judgment entered in this case, and an interlocutory appeal is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner's appeal is frivolous and DENIES Petitioner's motion to proceed IFP on appeal. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/4/2018. (Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 19, 2018

Filing 28 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. The Court overrules Petitioner's objections, adopts the Recommendation that the petition be dismissed, and dismisses the petition with prejudice. The Court denies Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)

September 4, 2018

Filing 24 ORDER denying 23 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal. As explained above, Petitioner's motion is premature at this stage of the litigation because there has not been a final order or judgment entered in this case, and an interlocutory appeal is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner's appeal is frivolous and DENIES Petitioner's motion to proceed IFP on appeal. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/4/2018. (Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

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: Rogers v. Superior Court of San Diego County
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Tyrone Rogers
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: Superior Court of San Diego County
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?