Post v. Watson
Petitioner: Dylan Post
Respondent: T.J. Watson
Case Number: 1:2017cv01283
Filed: June 19, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office: Peoria Office
County: Tazewell
Presiding Judge: James E. Shadid
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
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
July 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER AND OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 7/10/2018. Petitioner Post's Petition (Doc. 1 ) for Writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. This matter is now terminated. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER AND OPINION. (JS, ilcd)
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 Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Post v. Watson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Dylan Post
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: T.J. Watson
Represented By: Segev Phillips(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
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?