Cullen v. Payne
| John Patrick Cullen |
| Arkansas Department of Corrections and Dexter Payne |
| 4:2023cv00010 |
| January 5, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| James M Moody |
| J Thomas Ray |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER granting #1 Mr. Cullen's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; denying #4 Mr. Cullen's Motion for Counsel; directing the Clerk of Court to update the docket sheet to reflect that Mr. Cullen's current custodian, Dexter Payne, Director of ADC, is the proper Respondent in this matter; and directing the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of #2 2254 Petition, and this Order on Respondent and the Attorney General by mail; and directing the Respondent to file a responsive pleading within 21 days of service. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 2/28/2023. (kdr)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by John Patrick Cullen. (llg) |
| Filing 3 SUPPLEMENT to #2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by John Patrick Cullen. (kdr) |
| Filing 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by John Patrick Cullen.(kdr) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by John Patrick Cullen. (kdr) |
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
