Worthy v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Petitioner: Ronald J Worthy
Respondent: Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Case Number: 2:2012cv00652
Filed: July 19, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Columbus Office
County: LICKING
Presiding Judge: Elizabeth Preston Deavers
Presiding Judge: Edmund A Sargus
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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
August 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER granting 7 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, as this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/19/2013. (dh1)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Worthy v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Represented By: Mary Anne Reese
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 ]
Petitioner: Ronald J Worthy
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?