Neloms v. Kansas, State of
Plaintiff: Michael Neloms
Defendant: Kansas, State of
Case Number: 5:2013cv03036
Filed: February 27, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office: Topeka Office
County: Sedgwick
Presiding Judge: Sam A. Crow
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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 24, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is liberally construed as a petition for habeas corpus and is dismissed without prejudice as premature. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/24/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Michael Neloms by regular mail.) (smnd)
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Neloms v. Kansas, State of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kansas, State of
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 ]
Plaintiff: Michael Neloms
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?