Bartelho v. Ebbert
Petitioner: Thomas J Bartelho
Respondent: David Ebbert
Case Number: 3:2018cv00336
Filed: February 9, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Scranton Office
County: Union
Presiding Judge: JV
Presiding Judge: Richard P. Conaboy
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
April 29, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 of Magistrate Judge Carlson, DENYING petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 , finding no basis to issue certficate of appealability, & directin Clrk of Ct to CLOSE cas. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/29/19. (ki)
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: Bartelho 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: Thomas J Bartelho
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: David Ebbert
Represented By: Kate Mershimer
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?