HARTLEY v. BRYANT
Petitioner: DREW C HARTLEY
Respondent: RANDALL BRYANT
Case Number: 5:2007cv00233
Filed: September 25, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office: Panama City Office
County: Pinellas
Presiding Judge: ALLAN KORNBLUM
Presiding Judge: RICHARD SMOAK
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
March 3, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER DENYING re 15 MOTION for Discovery; 21 MOTION for Discovery; 23 MOTION to Compel; 38 MOTION for Expansion of the Record; 39 MOTION to Expand the Record; AND 41 MOTION to Expand the Record filed by DREW C HARTLEY. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALLAN KORNBLUM on 3/3/2009. (jws)
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: HARTLEY v. BRYANT
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: DREW C HARTLEY
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: RANDALL BRYANT
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?