Cook v. Martin et al
Andrew Cook |
Martin and State of Connecticut |
3:2021cv01465 |
November 1, 2021 |
US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
Stefan R Underhill |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/14/2022. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12.28.21.(Powell, G.) |
Filing 8 Letter from Andrew Cook Dated 12/3/2021 Re: Filing Fee (Payton, R.) |
Filing fee received from Andrew Cook: $5.00, receipt number TBA. (Freberg, B) |
Filing 7 ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11.22.21. (Powell, G.) |
Filing 6 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/1/2021.(Freberg, B) |
Filing 5 Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 11/1/2021.(Freberg, B) |
Filing 4 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/1/2021.(Freberg, B) |
Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Andrew Cook. (Freberg, B) |
Filing 2 PRISCS - MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Andrew Cook. (Freberg, B) |
Filing 1 PRISCS - PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Andrew Cook.(Freberg, B) |
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.