Bogarin v. Hatton
Petitioner: Anthony Bogarin
Respondent: S. Hatton
Case Number: 3:2016cv02793
Filed: November 10, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: Monterey
Presiding Judge: Barbara Lynn Major
Presiding Judge: Barry Ted Moskowitz
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER: (1) Adopting 48 The Finding and Conclusions of United States Magistrate Judge; (2) Overruling Petitioners Objections; (3) Denying Petition for a Writ of Habaes Corpus; and (4) Issuing a Certificate of Appealability as to all Claims. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 6/22/2020. (sxa)
May 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Order Denying 29 Petition for Writ of Habeas. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing Judgment be entered denying the First A mended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. No later than June 28, 2019, any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than July 12, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 5/13/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef)
October 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER denying 27 Petitioner's Second Motion For Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 10/18/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjm)
July 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 28 Order Granting Petitioner Leave to File a First Amended Petition and Setting Briefing Schedule - Motion to Dismiss due 10/1/2018 Opposition to Motion due 11/1/2018 OR Answer by Respondent due 10/1/2018 Traverse by Petitioner due 11/1/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 7/24/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjm)
October 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER: (1) Declining to Adopt the 17 Findings and Conclusions of United States Magistrate Judge; (2) Denying 10 Motion to Dismiss; (3) Granting 20 Motion for Stay and Abeyance; and (4) Staying Action. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 10/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf)
July 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Order Granting Respondent's 10 MOTION to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Due to Lack of Exhaustion of All Claims filed by S. Hatton. Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2017. Replies due by 9/1/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 7/10/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
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: Bogarin v. Hatton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Anthony Bogarin
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: S. Hatton
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?