Dalray Kwane Andrews v. W.L. Montgomery
Petitioner: Dalray Kwane Andrews
Respondent: W. L. Montgomery
Case Number: 5:2016cv00090
Filed: January 15, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Charles F. Eick
Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner
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, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 30 JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. (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: Dalray Kwane Andrews v. W.L. Montgomery
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Dalray Kwane Andrews
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: W. L. Montgomery
Represented By: Heather F Crawford
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?