Barnes v. Edenfield

Respondent: K. Edenfield
Petitioner: Gregory Barnes
Case Number: 6:2013cv00198
Filed: October 10, 2013
Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court
Office: London Office
County: Clay
Referring Judge: PSO
Presiding Judge: Danny C. Reeves
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2241
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
March 20, 2014 6 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Barnes' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1 ] is DENIED. 2. This action is DISMISSED and stricken from the Court's docket. 3. A separate Judgment shall issue this date. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 3/20/2014.(RBB)cc: COR, paper copy to pro se party via US Mail. Modified on 3/20/2014 (RBB).

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: Barnes v. Edenfield
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: K. Edenfield
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Gregory Barnes
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.