Johnson v. Forniss, et al (INMATE 3)
| Robert Anthony Johnson |
| Leon Forniss, Luther Strange and State of Alabama |
| 2:2012cv01029 |
| November 26, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Elmore |
| Charles S. Coody |
| Truman M. Hobbs |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
16
ORDER directing that, after an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1) The petitioner's objection (Doc. # 15 ) filed on January 6, 2014 to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is overrule d; (2) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 14 ) filed on December 20, 2013 is adopted; (3) The petition for habeas corpus relief is denied and that this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); (4) The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the petitioner. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 1/14/14. (scn, )
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER directing that on or before January 31, 2013, Johnson shall show cause why his federal habeas petition should not be denied as it was not filed within the one-year limitation period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/10/13. (scn, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
