Gilbert v. California Department of CDCR
Petitioner: Charles Trayzon Gilbert
Respondent: California Department of CDCR and Marcus Pollard
Case Number: 3:2021cv00859
Filed: May 3, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Presiding Judge: Daniel E Butcher
Referring Judge: Janis L Sammartino
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 Order Reopening Case and Setting Briefing Schedule: Respondents must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases on or before 7/26/2021. If Respondents file a motion to dismiss, Petitioner must file his opposition, if any, to the motion on or before 8/30/2021. Respondents must file and serve an answer to the Petition on or before 7/26/2021. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer on or before 8/30/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on 5/26/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)
May 19, 2021 Filing 4 AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Marcus Pollard, filed by Charles Trayzon Gilbert. (jms)
May 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER: (1) Granting #2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and (2) Dismissing Petition without Prejudice and with Leave to Amend. The Court GRANTS Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. #2 ) and DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. #1 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later 7/6/2021, file a First Amended Petition that names a proper respondent. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/5/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service and blank First Amended Petition mailed to Petitioner.) (tcf)
May 3, 2021 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Charles Trayzon Gilbert. (jms)(jrd)
May 3, 2021 Filing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Against California Department of CDCR, filed by Charles Trayzon Gilbert.($5 Filing Fee, Fee Not Paid, IFP Filed) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:21-cv-859-JLS-DEB. Judge Janis L. Sammartino and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening] (jms)(jrd)

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: Gilbert v. California Department of CDCR
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: California Department of CDCR
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 ]
Respondent: Marcus Pollard
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 ]
Petitioner: Charles Trayzon Gilbert
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?