Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson v. Derral G. Adams
Petitioner: Genhis Kahn Ali Stevenson
Respondent: Derral G. Adams
Case Number: 2:2008cv03251
Filed: September 4, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
Presiding Judge: Gary A. Feess
Presiding Judge: Suzanne H. Segal
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 4, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 12 JUDGMENT by Judge Gary A. Feess: It is HEREBY ADJUDGED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dhl)
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Genghis Khan Ali Stevenson v. Derral G. Adams
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Derral G. Adams
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 ]
Petitioner: Genhis Kahn Ali Stevenson
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?