Philip T. Charleston v. Steve Langford

Petitioner: Philip T Charleston
Respondent: Steve Langford
Case Number: 2:2017cv02077
Filed: March 15, 2017
Court: California Central District Court
Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner
Referring Judge: Michael R. Wilner
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
October 12, 2017 31 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. IT IS THE JUDGMENT of this Court that the action is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. Related to: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Order Dismissing Case, 30 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (vm)

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: Philip T. Charleston v. Steve Langford
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Philip T Charleston
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Steve Langford
Represented By: Agustin Dorian Orozco
Represented By: Assistant 2241-194 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 [ 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?