McQuown v. Ives
| Randall James McQuown |
| Richard B. Ives |
| 3:2016cv01927 |
| October 3, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Garr M. King |
| Prisoner Petitions: Mandamus and Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioners Habeas Corpus Petition (ECF No. 1 ) is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed on 1/24/2017 by Judge Garr M. King. (copy mailed to petitioner) (kms)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: McQuown v. Ives | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Warden: Richard B. Ives | |
| Represented By: | Jared Hager |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: Randall James McQuown | |
| 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.
