Rodriguez v. Jones
Petitioner: Frank Rodriguez
Respondent: Kurt Jones
Case Number: 2:2003cv74919
Filed: July 8, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
Presiding Judge: Gerald E Rosen
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 8, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER denying 78 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 79 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri)
June 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 76 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, GRANTING IN PART A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri)
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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rodriguez v. Jones
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Frank Rodriguez
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: Kurt Jones
Represented By: Brad H. Beaver
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?