Chin v. Copenhaven
Petitioner: Jermol Chin
Respondent: Paul Copenhaven
Case Number: 1:2013cv00330
Filed: March 8, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Fresno Office
County: Merced
Presiding Judge: Lawrence J. O'Neill
Presiding Judge: Michael J. Seng
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
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 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 6 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/6/13: Objections due within thirty (30) days after being served with the Findings and Recommendations. (Hellings, J)
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: Chin v. Copenhaven
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jermol Chin
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: Paul Copenhaven
Represented By: Samantha Sue Spangler
Represented By: Litigation Coordinator
Represented By: Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel
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?