Andrew Felton Odom v. Martin Hoshino
Petitioner: Andrew Felton Odom
Respondent: Martin Hoshino
Case Number: 2:2013cv01630
Filed: March 7, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Percy Anderson
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Chooljian
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 60 JUDGMENT by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations of the United Magistrate Judge 59 . IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (nbo)
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: Andrew Felton Odom v. Martin Hoshino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Martin Hoshino
Represented By: Roberta Lynn Davis
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: Andrew Felton Odom
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?