Bearheart, Bradley v. Dittman, Michael

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Wisconsin Western District Bearheart, Bradley v. Dittman, Michael

Bearheart, Bradley v. Dittman, Michael

Petitioner:	Bradley L. Bearheart
Respondent:	Michael Dittman
Case Number:	3:2014cv00603
Filed:	September 4, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Office:	Madison Office
County:	Columbia
Presiding Judge:	William M. Conley
Presiding Judge:	Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 6, 2017	Filing 37 ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/6/2017. (jef),(ps)
January 14, 2015	Filing 22 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 motion to supplement the record and stay the briefing. Within sixty days of the date of this order, Bearheart shall supplement the record with any additional state court records. By that same date, Bea rheart must submit any additional brief in support of the petition or the court will infer that he intends to rest on his initial brief. No further extensions will be granted unless accompanied by a showing of good cause. Once Bearheart files his res ponse to this order, or his time to do so expires, respondent will have thirty days in which to file a brief in opposition to the petition. Once the respondent files his brief in opposition, Bearheart will have twenty days to file a reply if he wishes to do so. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/14/2015. (jef),(ps)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 6, 2017

Filing 37 ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/6/2017. (jef),(ps)

January 14, 2015

Filing 22 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 motion to supplement the record and stay the briefing. Within sixty days of the date of this order, Bearheart shall supplement the record with any additional state court records. By that same date, Bea rheart must submit any additional brief in support of the petition or the court will infer that he intends to rest on his initial brief. No further extensions will be granted unless accompanied by a showing of good cause. Once Bearheart files his res ponse to this order, or his time to do so expires, respondent will have thirty days in which to file a brief in opposition to the petition. Once the respondent files his brief in opposition, Bearheart will have twenty days to file a reply if he wishes to do so. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/14/2015. (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: Bearheart, Bradley v. Dittman, Michael
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Bradley L. Bearheart
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: Michael Dittman
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	[ 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?