Ramirez v. Pearce
Petitioner: Alfredo Ramirez
Respondent: Warden Pearce
Case Number: 1:2012cv00894
Filed: September 24, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Texas
Office: Austin Office
Presiding Judge: Andrew W. Austin
Presiding Judge: Sam Sparks
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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
July 31, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the Court DISMISS with Prejudice Ramirez's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is further ORDERED that the Court DENIES Ramirez' 11 Motion to Strike Respondent's 10 Response. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (klw)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ramirez v. Pearce
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden Pearce
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: Alfredo Ramirez
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?