Daniel M. Davis v. Jack Fox
Petitioner: Daniel M. Davis
Respondent: Jack Fox
Case Number: 2:2015cv04077
Filed: May 29, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: David O. Carter
Presiding Judge: Kenly Kiya Kato
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
July 21, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 6 JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter related to: Memorandum & Order, 5 . IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (iva)
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: Daniel M. Davis v. Jack Fox
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Daniel M. 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 ]
Respondent: Jack Fox
Represented By: Diana L Pauli
Represented By: Assistant US Attorney LA-CV
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?