Adem v. Kane

Petitioner: Abdifatah Adem
Respondent: Katrina S Kane
Case Number: 2:2014cv02472
Filed: November 7, 2014
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: Michelle H Burns
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit: Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241
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
January 16, 2015 13 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 - Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Because this case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, no ruling on a certificate of appealability is required. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/16/15. (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: Adem v. Kane
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Katrina S Kane
Represented By: Adam Ryan Smart(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
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 ]
Petitioner: Abdifatah Adem
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?