Boykin v. Stephens
Petitioner: Curley James Boykin
Respondent: William Stephens
Case Number: 4:2014cv01894
Filed: July 7, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Office: Houston Office
County: Dallam
Presiding Judge: Vanessa D Gilmore
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 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 29 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment, granting nunc pro tunc 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer with Brief in Support. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. This court denies Boykins petition after careful consideration of the merits of hisconstitutional claims. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)
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 Texas Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Boykin v. Stephens
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Curley James Boykin
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: William Stephens
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?