Marquise Richardson v. Shawn Hatton
Petitioner: Marquise Richardson
Respondent: Shawn Hatton
Case Number: 5:2016cv01782
Filed: August 19, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Sheri Pym
Presiding Judge: Josephine L. Staton
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
November 20, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 12 JUDGMENT by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mba)
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: Marquise Richardson v. Shawn Hatton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Shawn Hatton
Represented By: Vincent P LaPietra
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: Marquise Richardson
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?