Mathews v. Neely
Petitioner: Quiana Mathews
Respondent: Neely
Case Number: 7:2022cv01141
Filed: September 6, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Presiding Judge: Nicholas A Danella
Referring Judge: R David Proctor
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 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 9/29/2022. (KAM)
September 6, 2022 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Quiana Mathews.(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 this case: Mathews v. Neely
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Quiana Mathews
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: Neely
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?