Paul Edward Jones v. Rickey Rackley
Petitioner: Paul Edward Jones
Respondent: Rickey Rackley
Case Number: 2:2016cv04958
Filed: July 7, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: John E. McDermott
Presiding Judge: John A. Kronstadt
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
August 3, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 18 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability 17 filed concurrently herewith, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (kl)
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: Paul Edward Jones v. Rickey Rackley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Paul Edward Jones
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: Rickey Rackley
Represented By: Herbert S Tetef
Represented By: Jessica Owen
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?