Derek Pettis v. D. Asuncion
Petitioner: Derek Pettis
Respondent: D. Asuncion
Case Number: 2:2016cv04241
Filed: June 14, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Chooljian
Presiding Judge: Consuelo B. Marshall
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 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 22 JUDGMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Pursuant to this Court's Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and this action are dismissed. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dml)
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: Derek Pettis v. D. Asuncion
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: D. Asuncion
Represented By: Charles Chung
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: Derek Pettis
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?