Bell v. Hartly

Petitioner: Terry Lawrence Bell
Respondent: James D Hartly
Case Number: 3:2010cv01432
Filed: July 8, 2010
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: William Q. Hayes
Referring Judge: Peter C. Lewis
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
April 18, 2011 13 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The (Doc. 1 ) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. The Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Excuse Late filing (Docs. 4 , 10 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/18/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

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: Bell v. Hartly
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Terry Lawrence Bell
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 ]
Respondent: James D Hartly
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 ]

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?