Lee v. Uttecht
Petitioner: Steven Lavelle Lee
Respondent: Jeffrey Uttecht
Case Number: 2:2015cv01665
Filed: October 19, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: Snohomish
Presiding Judge: James P. Donohue
Presiding Judge: Richard A Jones
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
December 19, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones adopting the 22 Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's 8 writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner's petition and this action are dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Steven Lee, Prisoner ID: 326206)(PM)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lee v. Uttecht
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Steven Lavelle Lee
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: Jeffrey Uttecht
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?