Robinson, James v. Tegels

Respondent: Tegels
Petitioner: James Robinson
Case Number: 3:2013cv00116
Filed: February 19, 2013
Court: Wisconsin Western District Court
Office: Madison Office
County: Jackson
Presiding Judge: William M. Conley
Referring Judge: Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
February 21, 2013 5 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying petitioner's 3 petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has until March 15, 2013 in which to pay the $5 filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 2/21/2013. (jef),(ps)

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 Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Robinson, James v. Tegels
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Tegels
Represented By: Gregory M. Weber
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: James Robinson
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.