Pettigrew v. Belleque
Petitioner: David Dow Pettigrew
Respondent: Brian Belleque
Case Number: 1:2009cv00520
Filed: May 11, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford Office
County: Marion
Presiding Judge: Mark D. Clarke
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 46 Opinion and Order. Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation 40 is adopted. The petition 2 is denied and this action is dismissed. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certficate of appealability is DENIED. Ordered and Signed on 07/08/2011 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (rsm)
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: Pettigrew v. Belleque
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: David Dow Pettigrew
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 ]
Respondent: Brian Belleque
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?