Harris #297127 v. Berghuis
Petitioner: Karlos Latwian Harris #297127
Respondent: Mary Berghuis
Case Number: 1:2010cv00018
Filed: January 8, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Office: Southern Division (1) Office
County: Muskegon
Presiding Judge: Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney
Presiding Judge: Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville
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 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 16 JUDGMENT dismissing habeas action under Rule 4; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, acr)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harris #297127 v. Berghuis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Karlos Latwian Harris #297127
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: 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 ]

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?