Woodworth v. Apker

Petitioner: Murray Allen Woodworth
Respondent: Lionel Craig Apker, Jr
Case Number: 4:2010cv00520
Filed: August 25, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Cindy K Jorgenson
Referring Judge: Bernardo P Velasco
Nature of Suit: General
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
August 5, 2011 22 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendations; Denying 20 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Murray Allen Woodworth. Dismissing Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Clerk of Court to enter JudgmentSigned by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 8/5/11. (SMBE)

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: Woodworth v. Apker
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Murray Allen Woodworth
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: Lionel Craig Apker, Jr
Represented By: John Reynolds Evans
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?