Douglas Wayne McCray v. Martel
Petitioner: Douglas Wayne McCray
Respondent: Martel
Case Number: 2:2008cv06100
Filed: September 17, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County: Amador
Presiding Judge: Matz
Presiding Judge: Nagle
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
October 17, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 6 JUDGMENT by Judge A. Howard Matz, Related to: Order 5 . IT IS ADJUDGED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice, for failure to exhaust available state remedies. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mz)
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: Douglas Wayne McCray v. Martel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Martel
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: Douglas Wayne McCray
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?