Radick v. Lappin et al
| Thomas Radick |
| Harley Lappin and Warden Garcia |
| 1:2010cv01865 |
| August 5, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Arapahoe |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| 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
24
ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 01/14/11.(jjh, )
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER of Dismissal. Ordered that the application is denied and the action dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons' three-step, administrative-remedy procedure before seeking federal court intervention by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/22/1 for Zita Leeson Weinshienk (jjh, )
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER to File Preliminary Response. Ordered that within 21 days Respondent shall file a Preliminary Response. Ordered that within 21 days of the filing of the Preliminary Response Applicant may file a Reply by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 08/10/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt)(jjh, )
|
|
Filing
2
ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Applicant to Cure Deficiency. Applicant instructed to submit a corrected Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action, within 30 days, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/3/10. (lyg, )
|
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 Colorado 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.
