Allen v. Dewalt

Allen v. Dewalt

Petitioner:	Edward Clyde Allen
Respondent:	Stephen M. Dewalt
Case Number:	5:2008cv00294
Filed:	July 1, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	Prisoner: Civil Rights Office
County:	Fayette
Presiding Judge:	Joseph M. Hood
Presiding Judge:	Pro Se
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 16, 2008	Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1)IT IS ORDERED that Edward Clyde Allen's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; (2) this action will be DISMISSED, sua sponte, from the docket of the Court, and Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order in favor of the Respondent. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 12/16/2008.(GLD)cc: COR
October 29, 2008	Filing 5 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) Respondent in this action is Stephen M. Dewalt; (2) Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of Petition and this Order upon Respondent Warden Dewalt, Attorney General for US, and Attorney for USA; (3) Respondent shall answer within 30 days of date of entry of this Order; Respondent shall also file with his answer all relevant evidence as to allegations in petition;(4) Upon entry of Response or expiration of time, Clerk shall notify PRO SE; (5) Petitioner shall keep Clerk informed of current mailing address; FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLERK OF ANY ADDRESS CHANGE MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF CASE. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/29/2008.(GLD)cc: COR

Date Filed

Document Text

December 16, 2008

Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1)IT IS ORDERED that Edward Clyde Allen's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; (2) this action will be DISMISSED, sua sponte, from the docket of the Court, and Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order in favor of the Respondent. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 12/16/2008.(GLD)cc: COR

October 29, 2008

Filing 5 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) Respondent in this action is Stephen M. Dewalt; (2) Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of Petition and this Order upon Respondent Warden Dewalt, Attorney General for US, and Attorney for USA; (3) Respondent shall answer within 30 days of date of entry of this Order; Respondent shall also file with his answer all relevant evidence as to allegations in petition;(4) Upon entry of Response or expiration of time, Clerk shall notify PRO SE; (5) Petitioner shall keep Clerk informed of current mailing address; FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLERK OF ANY ADDRESS CHANGE MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF CASE. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/29/2008.(GLD)cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Allen v. Dewalt
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Edward Clyde Allen
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: Stephen M. Dewalt
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?