Joe R. Loera v. Lary Smalls
Petitioner: Joe R. Loera
Respondent: Lary Smalls
Case Number: 2:2009cv02369
Filed: April 6, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County: Imperial
Presiding Judge: Otero
Presiding Judge: Woehrle
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
June 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 65 JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and the action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)
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: Joe R. Loera v. Lary Smalls
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Joe R. Loera
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: Lary Smalls
Represented By: Daniel Chi-Sum Chang
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?