Landingham v. Pearson
Plaintiff: James Clayton Landingham
Defendant: Bruce Pearson
Case Number: 5:2010cv00032
Filed: March 12, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Office: Western Office
Presiding Judge: David C. Bramlette
Presiding Judge: David C. Bramlette
Presiding Judge: Michael T. Parker
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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
May 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Petitioner's case will be dismissed without prejudice for this court's lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/14/2010 (dtj)
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 Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Landingham v. Pearson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Clayton Landingham
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 ]
Defendant: Bruce Pearson
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?