Smith v. Merlak
Petitioner: Christopher Smith
Respondent: S. Merlak
Case Number: 4:2017cv00538
Filed: March 15, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Youngstown Office
County: Columbiana
Presiding Judge: James G. Carr
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
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
November 9, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Order: The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1 ) be, and the same hereby is, denied. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that none shall be allowed without prepayment of the filing fee. Judge James G. Carr on 11/9/17. (C,D)
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: Smith v. Merlak
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Christopher Smith
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: S. Merlak
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?