Smith v. State of Hawaii
1:2006cv00618 |
November 20, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
Hawaii Office |
KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 4 5 - Signed by Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/27/06. [Smith's petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent, with leave granted to amend. Smith is GRANTED THIRTY DAYS, until December 27, 2006, to file an amended petition naming a proper respondent. Failure to file an Amended Petition within THIRTY (30)days, or by December 27, 2006 will result in the AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL of this action without prejudice. Smith is ORDERED to submit the $5.00 filing fee, failure to do so may also result in dismissal of this action. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Smith a copy of the court's habeas corpus form so that he may properly amend his Petition.] (emt, ) |
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 Hawaii 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: Smith v. State of Hawaii | |
---|---|
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.