Klinke v. Premo
Petitioner: David A. Klinke
Respondent: Jeff Premo
Case Number: 6:2015cv00323
Filed: February 24, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Eugene (6) Office
Presiding Judge: Malcolm F. Marsh
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions: 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
July 6, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER: Petitioner's motion for voluntary dismissal 19 is GRANTED. This proceeding is DISMISSED, without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c )(2). Signed on 7/6/15 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (Mailed copy to petitioner) (dsg)
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: Klinke v. Premo
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: David A. Klinke
Represented By: Francesca Freccero
Represented By: Lisa Hay
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: Jeff Premo
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?