Makkali v. Payne
5:1995cv00550 |
May 11, 2022 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
Pine Bluff Division (No new cases filed in this division after November 2019.) Office |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 39 ORDER granting 37 Motion for leave to amend. Makkali's Rule 60(b) motion is a successive habeas petition because he has filed multiple 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions challenging his 1992 convictions. Makkali must seek and get permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before this Court can proceed. 31 Motion, as amended, will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. No certificate of appealability will issue. All other pending motions, [2 9], 34 , 36 , & 38 , are denied as moot. The Court directs the Clerk to change the style of the case to reflect Makkali's new name and to indicate that Dexter Payne, the current Director of the Arkansas Division of Correction, is the respondent. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/11/2022. (jak) |
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
Search for this case: Makkali v. Payne | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.