Dwayne Earl Giles v. Elvin Valenzuela
Petitioner: Dwayne Earl Giles
Respondent: Elvin Valenzuela
Case Number: 2:2015cv07357
Filed: September 18, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Alicia G. Rosenberg
Presiding Judge: James V. Selna
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
December 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 63 JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna. Pursuant to the Order Denying Habeas Petition, IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (clee)
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: Dwayne Earl Giles v. Elvin Valenzuela
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Dwayne Earl Giles
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: Elvin Valenzuela
Represented By: Kenneth C Byrne
Represented By: Ana R Duarte
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?