Hammonds v. Allen (DEATH PENALTY)
Case Number: 1:2005cv00831
Filed: August 29, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Dothan Office
Presiding Judge: Wallace Capel
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
March 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 138 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Before the court is Petitioner Artez Hammondss Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider, Alter, or Amend this Courts Final Judgment and Grant an Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 130 .) At the time the court entered its March 27, 2012 opinion and final judgment, the Respondent was Kim Tobias Thomas, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. He has since been replaced in this position by Billy Sharp. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Sharp is substituted as Respondent in this action, and Kim Tobias Thomas is terminated as a party. For the reasons explained above, there is no merit to Hammonds's motion. Therefore, the court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing, and it is ORDERED that Hammonds's 130 Motion is DENIED as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/24/2015. (dmn, )
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hammonds v. Allen (DEATH PENALTY)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?