Legal Opinion

(HC) Arismendez v. Baughman

District Court, E.D. California

Decided March 25, 2020No. 2:17-cv-00792Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLANDO ARISMENDEZ, 12 No. 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 ORDER DAVID BAUGHMAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 13, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Alumino-Thermic Corp. v. Goldschmidt Thermit Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
  2. Andreas Kelly v. Larry Small, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  3. Rhines v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API