Carlson v. Dooly
Petitioner: David Richard Carlson
Respondent: Becky Dooly
Case Number: 0:2013cv00525
Filed: March 6, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
County: Carlton
Presiding Judge: Joan N. Ericksen
Presiding Judge: Jeanne J. Graham
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
April 24, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 4 - Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 1 is DENIED. This action is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on April 24, 2013. (CBC)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Carlson v. Dooly
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Becky Dooly
Represented By: Gary W Bjorklund
Represented By: Jennifer R Coates
Represented By: Matthew Frank
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: David Richard Carlson
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?