Claros-Bey v. Shartle

Petitioner: Brian Claros-Bey
Respondent: JT Shartle
Case Number: 4:2015cv00501
Filed: October 19, 2015
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Referring Judge: Bruce G Macdonald
Presiding Judge: Jennifer G Zipps
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
September 19, 2016 21 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDERED that 1 Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody is denied. Petitioner's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close its file in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 9/16/2016.(BAR) Modified on 9/20/2016, to add WO (BAR).

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: Claros-Bey v. Shartle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Brian Claros-Bey
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: JT Shartle
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?