Ricky Lee Earp v. Jeanne Woodford
Filing
353
JUDGMENT by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, in favor of Robert L Ayers, Jr against Ricky Lee Earp: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. Earp's petition for the writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice; and 2. The action be, and it hereby is, dismissed. (see document for further details) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RICKY LEE EARP,
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden of the
California State Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.
) CASE NO. CV 00-06508 MMM
)
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
On February 27, 2003, Judge Manuel L. Real issued an order dismissing all nineteen claims in
Ricky Lee Earp’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. On September 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but two of the claims. It remanded Earp’s prosecutorial
misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
On March 11, 2008, Judge Real issued an order dismissing Earp’s prosecutorial misconduct and
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. On October 19, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, reversed the dismissal of the prosecutorial
misconduct claim, and remanded and reassigned that claim to another judge for a further evidentiary
hearing. The matter was subsequently assigned to this court.
On December 14, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing Earp’s prosecutorial misconduct
claim, which was his last remaining claim. Consequently,
1
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
2
1.
Earp’s petition for the writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice; and
3
2.
The action be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
4
5
6
DATED: December 14, 2015
MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?