Allen v. Shartle

Petitioner: Julio Allen
Respondent: JT Shartle
Case Number: 4:2016cv00543
Filed: August 15, 2016
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Referring Judge: Bruce G Macdonald (PS)
Presiding Judge: Raner C Collins
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
April 12, 2017 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is Ordered that Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. It is further Ordered that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 4/12/2017. (MFR)

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: Allen v. Shartle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Julio Allen
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?