Hutto v. Marshall
Petitioner: William R. Hutto
Respondent: John Marshall
Case Number: 3:2007cv01210
Filed: July 9, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Luis Obispo
Presiding Judge: Barry Ted Moskowitz
Presiding Judge: Nita L. Stormes
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
July 5, 2007 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER Requiring Response to Petition (28 U.S.C. 2254). John Marshall answer due 9/10/2007;Traverse due by 10/10/2007. Signed by Judge Nita L. Stormes on 7/5/07. (vet) Modified on 7/6/2007 - copy of petition and order sent to Attorney General; copy of order mailed to petitioner (vet, ).
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: Hutto v. Marshall
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: William R. Hutto
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: John Marshall
Represented By: Attorney General
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?