Garcia v. Franke

Respondent: Steve Franke
Petitioner: Ruben Lara Garcia
Case Number: 2:2013cv00229
Filed: February 8, 2013
Court: Oregon District Court
Office: Pendleton (2) Office
Presiding Judge: Garr M. King
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 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
February 6, 2015 51 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION & ORDER The petition for writ of habeas corpus 2 is denied. Thisproceeding is dismissed with prejudice. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showingof the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). (See 15 page opinion for more information) Signed on 2/6/15 by Judge Garr M. King. (dsg)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Garcia v. Franke
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Steve Franke
Represented By: Lynn David Larsen
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Ruben Lara Garcia
Represented By: Steven T. Wax
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 [ 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.