Clay v. Quarterman
Petitioner: Paden Clay
Respondent: Nathaniel Quarterman
Case Number: 4:2007cv00720
Filed: November 26, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office: Fort Worth Office
County: Tyler
Presiding Judge: Charles Bleil
Presiding Judge: Terry R Means
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
September 22, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Paden Clay, 29 Findings and Recommendations: See Order for specifics. (Signed by Judge Terry R Means on 09/22/2008) (krg)
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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clay v. Quarterman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Paden Clay
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: Nathaniel Quarterman
Represented By: W Erich Dryden
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?