Chester v. Ebbert
Petitioner: Carl Chester, Jr.
Respondent: Ebert
Case Number: 1:2016cv01676
Filed: August 12, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Harrisburg Office
County: Union
Presiding Judge: EC
Presiding Judge: John E. Jones
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
August 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to NOTIFY the petitioner.3. The Clerk of Court is further directed to CLOSE this case. (eo)
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 Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chester v. Ebbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Carl Chester, Jr.
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: Ebert
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?