Johnson v. Berghuis
Petitioner: Arthur Johnson
Respondent: Mary Berghuis
Case Number: 2:2008cv13435
Filed: August 8, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Muskegon
Presiding Judge: Taylor
Presiding Judge: Whalen
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: No cause code entered
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 17, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 8 Opinion and Order (1) Denying Petitioner's 6 Motions for Appointment Of Counsel and a 7 Temporary Restraining Order as moot, (2) Dismissing the 1 Habeas Corpus Petition without prejudice, (3) Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, and (4) Denying Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. (JCur)
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: Johnson v. Berghuis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Mary Berghuis
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 ]
Petitioner: Arthur Johnson
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?