PRESTON v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Plaintiff: EDWIN PRESTON
Defendant: U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Case Number: 1:2010cv00069
Filed: January 14, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: Paul L. Friedman
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that petitioner may file a supplemental response to the government's motion to transfer on or before May 21, 2010. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 21, 2010. (MA)
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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PRESTON v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: EDWIN PRESTON
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 ]
Defendant: U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
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?