Antonio Mendoza Portillo v. J.N. Katavich

Respondent: J. N. Katavich
Petitioner: Antonio Mendoza Portillo
Case Number: 8:2013cv00611
Filed: April 17, 2013
Court: California Central District Court
Referring Judge: Victor B. Kenton
Presiding Judge: Otis D. Wright
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 23, 2013 15 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, Related to: Order, 14 . Pursuant to the Order Accepting the Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice. 1 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gr)

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: Antonio Mendoza Portillo v. J.N. Katavich
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: J. N. Katavich
Represented By: Eric Arthur Swenson
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: Antonio Mendoza Portillo
Represented By: Sherilyn P McDonald
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?