Dixon v. Director, Department of Corrections
| Marcus LeShawn Dixon |
| Director, Department of Corrections |
| 3:2022cv00493 |
| July 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Mark R Colombell |
| Elizabeth W Hanes |
| Henry E Hudson |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth W (MJ)Hanes no longer assigned to the case. (adun, )
|
|
USCA Case Number 22-6988, Case Manager R. Lee, for #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Marcus LeShawn Dixon. (jsmi, )
|
|
Assembled INITIAL Electronic Record Transmitted to 4CCA re #8 Notice of Appeal (smej, )
|
|
Filing 9
Transmission of Notice of Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #8 Notice of Appeal (All case opening forms, plus the transcript guidelines, may be obtained from the Fourth Circuit's website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 8
NOTICE OF APPEAL (duplicate) by Marcus LeShawn Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(adun, )
|
|
Filing 7
Transmission of Notice of Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #6 Notice of Appeal (All case opening forms, plus the transcript guidelines, may be obtained from the Fourth Circuit's website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov) (smej, )
|
|
Assembled INITIAL Electronic Record Transmitted to 4CCA re #6 Notice of Appeal (smej, )
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE OF APPEAL by Marcus LeShawn Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(adun, )
|
|
Filing 5
FINAL ORDER (Dismissing Successive 2254 Petition) that the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction; and, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Should Petitioner desire to appeal, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of the date of entry hereof. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 7/28/22. Copy of Order and Opinion mailed to Petitioner. (adun, )
|
|
Filing 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 7/28/22. (adun, )
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Marcus LeShawn Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(adun, )
|
|
Filing 2
MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) filed by Marcus LeShawn Dixon. (Attachments: #1 attachments, #2 Envelope)(adun, )
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Marcus LeShawn Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(adun, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Dixon v. Director, Department of Corrections | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Marcus LeShawn Dixon | |
| 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: Director, Department of Corrections | |
| 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.
