Mallak v. Attorney General of the State of Montana et al
Petitioner: Sabah Mallak
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Montana and Mike Mahoney
Case Number: 1:2007cv00053
Filed: April 11, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Montana
Office: Billings Office
County: YELLOWSTONE
Presiding Judge: Richard F. Cebull
Presiding Judge: Carolyn S. Ostby
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 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 52 in full. Mallak's petition 1 , 6 is DENIED with respect to the burglary conviction, but GRANTED with respect to the witness tampering conviction. The judgment entered in Yellowstone County Caus e No. DC-56-200930 on November 23, 2001, is VACATED as to witness tampering only. The State of Montana may renew proceedings on that charge within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. If the proceedings are not timely renewed, the State must permanently release Mallak from custody and collateral consequences that are based on his vacated conviction for witness tampering. Mallak is DENIED a certificate of appealability as to the burglary conviction. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 3/26/2010. (TAG, )
February 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 52 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 , 6 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Sabah Mallak. Mallak's petition should be DENIED with respect to the burglary conviction and GRANTED with respect to the witness tampering conviction. The Dist rict Court should issue an Order Conditionally Granting Writ stating that the judgment entered in Yellowstone County Cause No.DC-56-200-930 on November 23, 2001, is VACATED as to witness tampering. The State should be permitted to renew proceedings o n that charge within sixty days from the date of the Federal District Court's Order. A certificate of appealability should be DENIED as to the burglary conviction. The Clerk of Court should be directed to enter judgment by separate document in favor of the State and against Mallak as to the burglary conviction and in favor of Mallak and against the State as to the witness tampering conviction. Objections to F&R due by 2/22/2010. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 2/5/2010. (TAG, )
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 Montana District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mallak v. Attorney General of the State of Montana et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Sabah Mallak
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: Attorney General of the State of Montana
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: Mike Mahoney
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?