Ruttanamongkongul v. Garrett
| Thoucharin Ruttanamongkongul |
| C Garrett and Neely |
| 7:2022cv00851 |
| July 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Nicholas A Danella |
| R David Proctor |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER #5 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED, and Respondent is allowed until 9/6/2022 to file a response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas A Danella on 8/22/2022. (KAM)
|
|
Filing 5
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Order to Show Cause by C Garrett. (Long, Don)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Respondent Garrett is ORDERED to appear and show cause in writing within 21 days why Ruttanamongkongul's petition should not be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas A Danella on 8/1/2022. (KEK)
|
|
Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number B-225 (KAM)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER NOTICE OF DEFICIENT PLEADING - Petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a verified application to proceed ifp within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas A Danella on 7/13/2022. (KAM)
|
|
Filing 2
Prisoner Notice (KAM)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Thoucharin Ruttanamongkongul.(KAM)
|
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 Northern 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.
