Carlisle v. Shartle
Petitioner: Darius Quinard Carlisle
Respondent: J.T. Shartle
Case Number: 1:2008cv02527
Filed: October 24, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge: David A. Katz
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 4 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Petition is dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 2243. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3) than an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith re 1 . Judge David A. Katz on 1/15/2009. (R,Ci)
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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Carlisle v. Shartle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Darius Quinard Carlisle
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: J.T. Shartle
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?