Hansen v. Franke
Petitioner: Kenneth M. Hansen
Respondent: Steve Franke
Case Number: 2:2011cv01220
Filed: October 7, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Pendleton 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)
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
June 4, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 26 Opinion and Order. The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed on 6/4/2012 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: Hansen v. Franke
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Kenneth M. Hansen
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: Steve Franke
Represented By: Jonathan W. Diehl
Represented By: Jacqueline Sadker Kamins
Represented By: Lynn David Larsen
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?