Hatfield v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 10, 2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) Petitioner Therral Hatfield's 69 pro se Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as supplemented (doc #. 70 ), is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction; and 2) Mr. Hatfield's request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/10/2018. (alm, )
|June 27, 2018
ORDER denying 67 Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/27/2018. (wcl, )
|November 9, 2015
ORDER: Before the court is Petitioner Therral Hatfields Notice of Appeal (Doc. 56 ), which is construed as containing a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and motion for certificate of appealability. (Doc. 55 .) The motions are due to be denied. It is ORDERED that Petitioner's 55 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and Motion for Certificate of Appealability are DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/9/2015. (dmn, )
|October 21, 2015
ORDER as follows: 1. Petitioner's 52 Objections are OVERRULED. 2. The 51 Recommendation is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner's 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED with prejudice because the claims therein entitled him to no relief.A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/21/2015. (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
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?