Haithcock v. Veal

Case Number: 3:2006cv00100
Filed: January 17, 2006
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
Referring Judge: Jan M. Adler
Presiding Judge: Napoleon A. Jones
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
June 16, 2010 69 Opinion or Order of the Court CLERK'S JUDGMENT: IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court overrules Petitioner's Objections and Adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court denies the Petition and a Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not issue in this case. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
September 24, 2009 64 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING 63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and denies Haithcock's motion for leave to amend his petition. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(llb)
May 22, 2009 63 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 51 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Thomas Ouia Haithcock. Objections to R&R due by 6/22/2009. Reply to objection shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties within 10 days of being erved with the objections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 05/22/09. (bjb) (jrl).

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Haithcock v. Veal
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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?