Russell v. Harris et al
| Isaac Russell |
| Johnnie Harris, Mark Cashion, Marvin Evans and John Lowe |
| 5:2009cv00139 |
| May 13, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Pine Bluff Office |
| Chicot |
| J. Leon Holmes |
| Joe J. Volpe |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
13
ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendations in their entirety; therefore, the 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; the requested relief is denied and any pending motions are denied as moot; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 1/6/10. (vjt)
|
|
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Petitioner's 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice and the relief requested DENIED; directing the Clerk of the Court to send the Petitioner a 1983 Complaint form packet in the event he wishes to bring a 1983 action; objections due 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 12/21/2009. (jas)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER informing petitioner of his opportunity to reply within thirty days to respondent's argument that his petition should be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr on 6/23/09. (bkp)
|
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.
