Royce Sung Kwark v. Ron Rackley
Petitioner: Royce Sung Kwark
Respondent: Ron Rackley
Case Number: 2:2015cv04088
Filed: June 1, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Michael W. Fitzgerald
Presiding Judge: Douglas F. McCormick
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
April 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 48 JUDGMENT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: The Petition is denied and the action is dismissed with prejudice. Re Order Accepting Report and Recommendations 47 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ib)
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: Royce Sung Kwark v. Ron Rackley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Royce Sung Kwark
Represented By: Clifford Gardner
Represented By: Lazuli Mariah Whitt
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: Ron Rackley
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?