STONE v. STATE OF NEVADA et al
| RANDY M. STONE |
| STATE OF NEVADA, TIM GEARITT and AARON FORD |
| 1:2022cv00214 |
| January 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Prisoner Petition: General (Habeas Corpus) |
| 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 March 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Receipt on 03/21/2022 of Electronic Transfer. Other Court Number 3:22-cv-00136 sent by District of Nevada. (znmg) |
| Filing 5 Case transferred to the USDC for the District of Nevada pursuant to #4 Order Transferring Pro Se Case. Sent to Court via extraction. (znmg) |
Filing 4
ORDER TRANSFERRING PRO SE CASE to the USDC for the District of Nevada. #2 Application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pro Se party has been notified by first class mail. Transfer due by 3/21/2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/1/2022. (ztnr)
|
| Filing 3 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/1/2022. (ztnr) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by RANDY M. STONE. (znmw) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by RANDY M. STONE.(znmw) |
| Initiating Pleading & IFP Application Received on 1/25/2022. A copy of the docket sheet has been mailed to the address of record for the pro se party. (znmw) |
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 District Of Columbia 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.
