Bundrage v. Head
Petitioner: Rene Bundrage
Respondent: Frederick Head
Case Number: 5:2010cv00202
Filed: May 24, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
Office: Macon Office
County: Putnam
Presiding Judge: C. Ashley Royal
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER that the Petition be Dismissed without prejuduce to Petitioner's refiling following his receipt of authorization from the 11th Circuit. The Clerk is Ordered to furnish Petitioner with the application form required by the 11th Circuit for leave to file a successive habeas petition. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 6/2/10. (lap)
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 Georgia Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bundrage v. Head
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Rene Bundrage
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Frederick Head
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?