Edington v. F.C.I. Elkton

Respondent: Warden F.C.I. Elkton
Petitioner: Jeremy R. Edington
Case Number: 4:2013cv00129
Filed: January 18, 2013
Court: Ohio Northern District Court
Office: Youngstown Office
County: Columbiana
Presiding Judge: Jeffrey J. Helmick
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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
January 14, 2014 5 Opinion or Order of the Court Memorandum Opinion and Order: Petition is dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 2243 for lack of subject matter jurisdicton, but without prejudice to file a civil rights action. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 1/14/2014. (S,AL)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Edington v. F.C.I. Elkton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden F.C.I. Elkton
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: Jeremy R. Edington
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.