Tom Sungwon Shin v. Ralph Diaz
Plaintiff: Ralph Diaz
Petitioner: Tom Sungwon Shin
Case Number: 8:2019cv02309
Filed: November 29, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: John A Kronstadt
Referring Judge: Karen L Stevenson
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 29, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (28 USC 2254), Receipt No. 0973-24867244 for $5 filing fee, filed by Petitioner Tom Sungwon Shin. (Attachments: #1 Writ Petition, #2 Habeas Petition, #3 Memorandum Points and Authorites) (Attorney Patrick Morgan Ford added to party Tom Sungwon Shin(pty:pet))(Ford, Patrick)

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: Tom Sungwon Shin v. Ralph Diaz
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ralph Diaz
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: Tom Sungwon Shin
Represented By: Patrick Morgan Ford
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?