Pete Adams v. S. Hatton
Petitioner: Pete Adams
Respondent: S. Hatton
Case Number: 5:2016cv02671
Filed: December 29, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Karen E. Scott
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
April 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 12 JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt, Related to: Report and Recommendation (Final), 11 . The Petition is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ah)
February 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE (1) DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS UNTIMELY OR (2) DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS SUCCESSIVE by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/1/2017. (mt)
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: Pete Adams v. S. Hatton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Pete Adams
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: S. Hatton
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?