Hancock v. Quarterman
Petitioner: Joseph David Hancock
Respondent: Nathaniel Quarterman
Case Number: 6:2009cv00030
Filed: April 28, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Office: Victoria Office
County: Randall
Presiding Judge: John D. Rainey
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
March 4, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Respondent's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted. Petition 1 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is Denied. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. (Signed by Judge John D. Rainey.) Parties notified. (yhausmann, )
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 Texas Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hancock v. Quarterman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Joseph David Hancock
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: Nathaniel Quarterman
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?