Johnson v. Hill
Petitioner: Ronald Johnson
Respondent: Superintendant Jean Hill
Case Number: 1:2007cv00872
Filed: June 29, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford Office
Presiding Judge: Owen M. Panner
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 29, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 38 Opinion and Order. For the reason identified in this Opinion and Order, the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 33 is DENIED. (please access document by number hyperlink for complete review and details of Opinion and Order). Signed on 6/29/2009 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Johnson v. Hill
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Superintendant Jean Hill
Represented By: Jacqueline Sadker Kamins
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: Ronald Johnson
Represented By: Alison M. Clark
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?