Young v. Adams

Defendant: Derral Adams
Petitioner: Howard Allen Young
Case Number: 5:2009cv01462
Filed: March 17, 2009
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Santa Clara
Presiding Judge: Jeremy Fogel
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 30, 2010 30 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS; SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Respondent shall file with the Court within 90 days an answer showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Show Cause Response due by 7/30/2010. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/29/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2010)

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: Young v. Adams
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Howard Allen Young
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Derral Adams
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 [ 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?