Pruitt v. Williams
| Brian E Pruitt |
| Mark Williams |
| Habeas Attorney General |
| 4:2022cv04152 |
| October 17, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 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 December 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Respondent Mark Williams. Responses due by 12/28/2022 (Ness, Mitchell) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Mitchell Ness on behalf of Mark Williams (Ness, Mitchell) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 10/18/22. The court has reviewed the Petition #1 and it does not appear to be clearly without merit. The court therefore orders Respondent to file an answer or other responsive pleading within 60 days, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Respondent should attach those portions of the state court record which are relevant to Petitioner's claims and to the issues of the statute of limitations, exhaustion of state remedies, and procedural default.(BMG)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Brian E Pruitt.(BMG) |
| Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number ROC400000128 (ANW) |
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 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.
