Smith v. Curry
Petitioner: David Thayne Smith
Respondent: Ben Curry
Case Number: 5:2008cv04620
Filed: October 7, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Monterey
Presiding Judge: James Ware
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
January 7, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner's Motion to proceed in forma pauperius is DENIED as moot. Motions terminated: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by David Thayne Smith. Signed by Judge James Ware on 1/6/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2009)
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Curry
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: David Thayne Smith
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: Ben Curry
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?