Tanner v. Deboo
Petitioner: Max Clark Tanner
Respondent: Kuma Deboo
Case Number: 2:2007cv01233
Filed: June 25, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Lassen
Presiding Judge: Frank C. Damrell
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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
April 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 43 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 4/15/2009 RECOMMENDING that Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., Objections due 20 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
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: Tanner v. Deboo
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Max Clark Tanner
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: Kuma Deboo
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?