Allen v. Cate et al

Petitioner: Bruce Allen
Respondent: Matthew Cate
Case Number: 3:2008cv01123
Filed: June 24, 2008
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: Imperial
Referring Judge: Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Presiding Judge: M. James Lorenz
Nature of Suit: None
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
February 19, 2009 11 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 8 AND RECOMMENDATIONS as Modified, Overruling Objections and Dismissing Petition as Untimely: Granting 4 Motion to Dismiss filed by Matthew Cate. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 2/19/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj) (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: Allen v. Cate et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Matthew Cate
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Bruce Allen
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?