Navarro v. On Habeas Corpus
Petitioner: Marco Antonio Navarro
Respondent: On Habeas Corpus
Case Number: 1:2017cv00223
Filed: February 16, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Fresno Office
County: Tulare
Presiding Judge: Michael J. Seng
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 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/6/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
September 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER DENYING 9 & 21 Motions to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/6/2017. (Jessen, A)
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: Navarro v. On Habeas Corpus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Marco Antonio Navarro
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: On Habeas Corpus
Represented By: Ryan Blake McCarroll
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?