Chavez v. Hartley
Petitioner: Pablo Mendoza Chavez
Respondent: James D. Hartley
Case Number: 1:2013cv00101
Filed: January 22, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Fresno Office
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: Gary S. Austin
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER DENYING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and Close Case; ORDER DECLINING Issuance of Certificate of Appealability, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/22/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chavez v. Hartley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: James D. Hartley
Represented By: Catherine Tennant Nieto
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: Pablo Mendoza Chavez
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?