Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Christopher Duane Bakken v. A. K. Scribner

January 21, 2011

CHRISTOPHER DUANE BAKKEN,
PETITIONER,
v.
A. K. SCRIBNER, ET.AL.,
RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION[Doc. 50]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Meredith Fahn, Esq.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of twenty-five years to life following his conviction of being an inmate in possession of a weapon. Petitioner filed a timely appeal, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court denied review on June 9, 2004.

Petitioner filed the original federal petition in this case on September 7, 2005. Petitioner filed an amended petition on December 11, 2005.

On November 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a state habeas corpus petition in the Kings County Superior Court. The petition was denied on March 10, 2006.

In the meantime, on February 22, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion. On February 27, 2006, Respondent filed a non-opposition motion.

On March 7, 2006, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to stay the instant petition and directed Petitioner to file a status report every sixty days thereafter.

On April 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The petition was denied on December 7, 2006.

On December 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. On February 28, 2007, the petition for review was granted and the matter was transferred to the state appellate court with directions to issue an order to show cause why Petitioner was not entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

On March 6, 2007, the Fifth Appellate District vacated its December 7, 2006 order denying the habeas petition. The appellate court then issued an order to show cause why Petitioner was not entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The appellate court also ordered a hearing on the issue.

An evidentiary hearing was held over several days in early 2008. The court denied the habeas petition thereafter.

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Fifth Appellate District on August 27, 2009. The petition was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.