Douglas v. Sullivan
| Bennette L. Douglas |
| William Joe Sullivan |
| 3:2018cv02604 |
| November 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Mitchell D Dembin |
| William Q Hayes |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time by Bennette L. Douglas. (jms) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Robin Urbanski on behalf of William Joe Sullivan (Urbanski, Robin)Attorney Robin Urbanski added to party William Joe Sullivan(pty:res) (jms). |
Filing 6
Order Requiring Response to Petition (28 U.S.C. 2254). Respondent must file a "Notice of Appearance" no later than 12/24/2018. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss due 02/11/2019. Opposition to Motion due 03/11/2019 OR Answer by Respondent due 02/11/2019. Traverse by Petitioner due 03/11/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/10/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(CA Attorney General served a copy of petition and this Order electronically and via U.S. Mail Service).(ajs)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER Granting #4 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 12/05/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Bennette L. Douglas. (jms) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice and With Leave to Amend. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court therefore Dismisses the case without prejudice and with leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than 01/25/2019, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/20/2018.(Petitioner served a copy of this Order and a blank IFP form via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs) (jao).
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Bennette L. Douglas. (jms) (jao). |
| Filing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against William Joe Sullivan, filed by Bennette L. Douglas.($5 Filing Fee, Fee Not Paid, IFP Not Filed) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:18-cv-2604-WQH-MDD. Judge William Q. Hayes and Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening] (jms) (jao). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Douglas v. Sullivan | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: William Joe Sullivan | |
| Represented By: | Attorney General |
| Represented By: | Robin Urbanski |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: Bennette L. Douglas | |
| 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.
