Rosca v. Gilky

Petitioner: Vasile Valy Rosca
Respondent: Gilky
Case Number: 2:2008cv00963
Filed: May 21, 2008
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: Glenda E Edmonds (PS)
Presiding Judge: Frederick J Martone
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
October 9, 2008 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting petitioner's 10 Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss his petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice with respect to the sentence reduction claim and without prejudice with respect to the claim for modification of the term of supervised release. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/8/2008. (LAD)

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rosca v. Gilky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Vasile Valy Rosca
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Gilky
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 [ 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?