Cardoza v. Pullen et al
| Eva Cardoza |
| Timethea Pullen, Patrick McFarland and Michael Carvajal |
| 3:2022cv00591 |
| April 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
REPLY to Response to #12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Michael Carvajal, Patrick McFarland, Timethea Pullen. (Larson, John)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER denying #13 Motion for Expedited Discovery. Petitioner has requested an order of the Court directing Respondents to provide Petitioner's Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") medical records for the last three years and BOP memoranda and other documents relating to policies, procedures, and protocols for home confinement revocation. Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases grants a district court discretion, for good cause shown, to allow habeas petitioners to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that Rule, the Court may also limit the extent of discovery. Further, Rule 7 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases provides that, if the petition is not dismissed, the judge may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials related to the petition.In lieu of filing an answer to the Petition pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases, Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition on several grounds. See ECF No. 12-1. The motion to dismiss remains pending before the Court. Because this Court reviews a motion to dismiss a habeas petition according to the same principles as a motion to dismiss a civil complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Peterkin v. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, No. 3:19-CV-497 (KAD), 2019 WL 2602962, at *1 (D. Conn. June 25, 2019), it must apply the rule that the factual allegations of the petition are accepted as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss. Respondents claim that, even if all of Petitioner's allegations are true, she is not entitled to the relief that she seeks as a matter of law. Because the Court has yet to determine whether Petitioner has stated a claim for relief, there does not appear to be good cause to allow Petitioner to conduct discovery at this juncture. Petitioner's motion for discovery is denied without prejudice to resubmission if discovery becomes necessary at a later stage in the case. See Davis v. Mitchell, No. 3:09-CV-37, 2010 WL 1169956, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2010). Relatedly, the Court has determined that the hearing scheduled for June 27, 2022, at 12 p.m. shall be an oral argument on the motion to dismiss and will not be an evidentiary hearing.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 06/03/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 19
NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. *Please note the time change.* Oral Argument and/or Evidentiary Hearing set for 6/27/2022 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom One, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Sarala V. Nagala. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 18
OBJECTION re #13 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Expedited Discovery filed by Michael Carvajal, Patrick McFarland, Timethea Pullen. (Larson, John)
|
|
Filing 17
NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Oral Argument and/or Evidentiary Hearing set for 6/27/2022 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom One, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Sarala V. Nagala. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER. By June 6, 2022, Respondents may file a reply to Petitioner's response to Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. #15 ). Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 05/23/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 15
RESPONSE Petitioner-Plaintiff's Reply to Habeas Petition filed by Eva Cardoza. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, #3 Exhibit F)(Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Set Deadline as to #13 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Expedited Discovery: Responses due by 5/27/2022. Set Deadline as to #12 MOTION to Dismiss: Responses due by 6/7/2022. See 14 Order. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER. Following receipt of Petitioner's Motion for Expedited Discovery (ECF No. #13 ), the Court orders that briefing in this action shall proceed as follows. Respondents shall respond to Petitioner's Motion for Expedited Discovery (ECF No. #13 ) by May 27, 2022. Petitioner's May 31, 2022, reply deadline, as set forth in ECF No. 11, is hereby vacated. Instead, any response to Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. #12 ) shall be due by June 7, 2022. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 05/19/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION to Expedite Motion for Expedited Discovery by Eva Cardoza. (Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Filing 12
MOTION to Dismiss by Michael Carvajal, Patrick McFarland, Timethea Pullen.Responses due by 6/7/2022 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(Larson, John)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER. In light of a communication from Petitioner's counsel that the court hearing for which she sought the immediate provisional remedy of enlargement will be postponed from May 6, the Court's May 5 hearing on Petitioner's request for the immediate provisional remedy of enlargement will be postponed. The May 2 and 3 briefing deadlines on the issue of Petitioner's request for immediate enlargement, as set forth in ECF Nos. 7 and 8, are suspended. Respondents may address the issue of enlargement in their merits brief due May 17, 2022. Petitioner may file a reply by May 31, 2022. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 05/02/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 10
NOTICE of Appearance by John W. Larson on behalf of Michael Carvajal, Patrick McFarland, Timethea Pullen (Larson, John)
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE of Appearance by Marisol Orihuela on behalf of Eva Cardoza (Orihuela, Marisol)
|
|
NOTICE regarding hearing via Zoom: A hearing is scheduled for 5-5-2022 at 11:00 AM and will be conducted via Zoom. All parties shall attend via Zoom. The video link is https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1612868959?pwd=ZGljMkFxNmdwRFBYbTZrVG1XSDZmdz09 and call in number is 646-828-7666.Meeting ID: 161 286 8959 Meeting Password: 587024Please note: Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, screenshots, streaming, and rebroadcasting in any form, of court proceedings. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which governs the practices of the federal courts, has prohibited it. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. (Shafer, J.)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER. The Court clarifies its April 26 order concerning Petitioner's request for an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 7). By May 2, 2022, Respondents shall show cause why Petitioner's request for immediate enlargement in advance of May 6, 2022, as a provisional remedy should not be granted. Petitioner may file any reply on the issue of enlargement in advance of May 6, 2022, as a provisional remedy by May 3, 2022. The Court will schedule a hearing on May 5, 2022, to consider the provisional remedy of enlargement.By May 17, 2022, Respondents shall show cause why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted on the merits. Petitioner may file any reply on the merits issues by May 31, 2022.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/27/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting in part #2 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Pursuant to Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Section 2255 Proceedings, on or before May 2, 2022, Respondents shall show cause why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. Petitioner may file any reply by May 3, 2022. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the Petition and this Order on the United States Attorney's Office via email. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/26/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER. The Court has determined that this case is insufficiently related to Tompkins v. Pullen, No. 22-cv-339 (OAW), to be transferred to Judge Williams. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/26/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/26/2022.(Gould, K.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/26/2022.(Gould, K.)
|
|
Judge Sarala V. Nagala added. (Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE of Related Case by Eva Cardoza (Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Order to Show Cause Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 by Eva Cardoza. (Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT & Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Request for Immediate Order of Enlargement in Advance of May 6, 2022 as a Provisional Remedy against Michael Carvajal, Patrick McFarland, Timethea Pullen ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-6911977.), filed by Eva Cardoza. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support of Request for Immediate Order of Enlargement as a Provisional Remedy, #2 Exhibit A -- Declaration of Eva Cardoza, #3 Exhibit B -- Declaration of Eric Alvarez, #4 Exhibit C)(Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Patrick McFarland. (Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Timethea Pullen. (Russell, Sarah)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Michael Carvajal. (Russell, Sarah)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
