Kevin Darnell Pearson v. Ronald Davis

Petitioner: Kevin Darnell Pearson
Respondent: Ronald Davis
Case Number: 2:2017cv06668
Filed: September 11, 2017
Court: California Central District Court
Presiding Judge: Otis D. Wright
Nature of Suit: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
April 4, 2018 33 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that for the reasons set forth in the Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice (Docket No. 32), the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed September 11, 2017 is DENIED and DISMISSED based on Petitioners failure to exhaust state court remedies and also on abstention grounds. (lc)

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: Kevin Darnell Pearson v. Ronald Davis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Ronald Davis
Represented By: Dana M Ali
Represented By: Yun K Lee
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 ]
Petitioner: Kevin Darnell Pearson
Represented By: Conrad Petermann
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?