PAULCIN v. BONDI et al
Petitioner: PROPHET PAULCIN
Respondent: SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Case Number: 3:2015cv00076
Filed: March 2, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office: Pensacola Office
County: Escambia
Presiding Judge: GARY R JONES
Presiding Judge: M CASEY RODGERS
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
September 22, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge's 18 Report and Recommendation. Petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1 , is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 09/22/2017. (MB)
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 Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PAULCIN v. BONDI et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: PROPHET PAULCIN
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: SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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?