Wayne Clyde Mezzles v. John N. Katavich
Petitioner: Wayne Clyde Mezzles
Respondent: John N. Katavich
Case Number: 2:2014cv07430
Filed: September 23, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Robert N. Block
Presiding Judge: Margaret M. Morrow
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
October 17, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 73 JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna: Pursuant to the Courts Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lwag)
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: Wayne Clyde Mezzles v. John N. Katavich
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: John N. Katavich
Represented By: Daniel Chi-Sum Chang
Represented By: Paul M Roadarmel, Jr
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: Wayne Clyde Mezzles
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?