Lewis v. Redman

Petitioner: Thomas E Lewis
Respondent: Rodney Redman
Case Number: 4:2013cv00133
Filed: March 5, 2013
Court: Oklahoma Northern District Court
Office: Tulsa Office
County: Craig
Presiding Judge: Claire V Eagan
Referring Judge: T Lane Wilson
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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 17, 2014 13 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - Directing Court Clerk to substitute Emma Watts, Warden, in place of Rodeny Redman, Warden, as party respondent ; denying certificate of appealability; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (RGG, Chambers)

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

Search for this case: Lewis v. Redman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Thomas E Lewis
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 ]
Respondent: Rodney Redman
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.