Maurice Lamar Thompson v. Darryl G. Adams
Petitioner: Maurice Lamar Thompson
Respondent: Darryl G. Adams
Case Number: 2:2009cv00818
Filed: February 3, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: Eick
Presiding Judge: King
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 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 47 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King: IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (am)
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: Maurice Lamar Thompson v. Darryl G. Adams
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Maurice Lamar Thompson
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 ]
Respondent: Darryl G. Adams
Represented By: Eric J Kohm
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?