Nguyen v. Kramer
Petitioner: Hung Nguyen
Respondent: M. C. Kramer
Case Number: 2:2009cv00399
Filed: February 11, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Craig M. Kellison
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/1/09 ORDERING that this case is appropriate for summary dismissal because the petition is untimely. All pending motions/requests are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close this file. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)
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: Nguyen v. Kramer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Hung Nguyen
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: M. C. Kramer
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?