Barghout v. Brannon
Petitioner: Jamal Barghout
Respondent: Christine Brannon
Not Classified By Court: Habeas Attorney General
Case Number: 1:2020cv01418
Filed: December 1, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: James E Shadid
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 8, 2020 Filing 2 Remark: Habeas 2254 Packet attached for Petitioner to complete and return by 2/8/2021. (TK, ilcd)
December 8, 2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Miscellaneous Deadline 2/8/2021 for petitioner to file 2254 petition. (TK, ilcd)
December 8, 2020 Opinion or Order TEXT ORDER: Petitioner Barghouti has filed a pro se motion #1 seeking a stay of proceedings and extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. Petitioner believes that he has exhausted some of his claims, but others are still pending in state court. When a petitioner has a "mixed" petition that contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in order to avoid some claims being time-barred in federal court, a petitioner may file a " ' protective' petition in federal court and [ask] the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted." Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1813 (2005). The court should grant the motion "if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). However, before a court may stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings, a petitioner must first properly begin the proceedings by filing his 2254 petition. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a 2254 packet. Petitioner is instructed to (1) file a 2254 petition on the form included in the packet or on a document that substantially complies with the form and (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis before the Court can consider his motion. Petitioner shall do so within sixty (60) days or the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 12/8/2020. (TK, ilcd)
December 1, 2020 Filing 1 MOTION for Extension of Time to File 2254 by Petitioner Jamal Barghout. Responses due by 12/15/2020 (Attachments: #1 Part 2)(VH, 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: Barghout v. Brannon
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Not classified by court: Habeas Attorney General
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: Christine Brannon
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 ]
Petitioner: Jamal Barghout
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?