Jackson v. Denney
Petitioner: Michael J. Jackson
Respondent: Larry Denney
Case Number: 4:2009cv01878
Filed: November 12, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: DeKalb
Presiding Judge: Frederick R. Buckles
Presiding Judge: Donald J. Stohr
Nature of Suit: None
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
December 17, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. [Doc. 2] Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 12/17/09. (RJD)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jackson v. Denney
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael J. Jackson
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: Larry Denney
Represented By: Stephen D. Hawke
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?