Hartvigsen v. Stolc
Petitioner: Mark Hartvigsen
Respondent: Bruno Stolc
Case Number: 2:2009cv02047
Filed: September 25, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Presiding Judge: Mark E Aspey (PS)
Presiding Judge: Mary H Murguia
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
November 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER The motions for a restraining order and to appoint counsel are denied. (Doc.# 3 , 5 .) The 1 Petition and this action are summarily dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 11/18/09.(ESL)
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: Hartvigsen v. Stolc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Mark Hartvigsen
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: Bruno Stolc
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?