Richardson v. Pfister et al

Petitioner:	Andre Richardson
Respondent:	Randy Pfister
Case Number:	1:2016cv07422
Filed:	July 20, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Will
Presiding Judge:	Thomas M. Durkin
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 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
September 17, 2021	Filing 126 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's motion for summary judgment, R. 94 , is granted, and Richardson's petition for habeas corpus, R. 24 , is denied, but a certificate of appealability shall issue on both of his habeas claims. This civil case is terminated. The Court thanks counsel of record for their outstanding work in this case, and in particular appointed counsel for Richardson - Russell D. Mangas, Sean M. Berkowitz, Amy R. Gore, and Kathleen R. E lsner, each of Latham & Watkins LLP while assigned to this case - who so ably and diligently worked to bring the relevant facts to light and to advocate for their client's interests throughout this litigation. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 9/17/2021. Mailed notice. (ecw, )
August 6, 2019	Filing 61 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Richardson's motion to equitably toll the time for filing his habeas petition, R. 45 46 , but withholds judgment on the merits of Richardson's petition, R. 24 , pending the limited additional discovery and subsequent evidentiary hearing. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/6/2019:Mailed notice(srn, )

Date Filed

Document Text

September 17, 2021

Filing 126 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's motion for summary judgment, R. 94 , is granted, and Richardson's petition for habeas corpus, R. 24 , is denied, but a certificate of appealability shall issue on both of his habeas claims. This civil case is terminated. The Court thanks counsel of record for their outstanding work in this case, and in particular appointed counsel for Richardson - Russell D. Mangas, Sean M. Berkowitz, Amy R. Gore, and Kathleen R. E lsner, each of Latham & Watkins LLP while assigned to this case - who so ably and diligently worked to bring the relevant facts to light and to advocate for their client's interests throughout this litigation. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 9/17/2021. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

August 6, 2019

Filing 61 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Richardson's motion to equitably toll the time for filing his habeas petition, R. 45 46 , but withholds judgment on the merits of Richardson's petition, R. 24 , pending the limited additional discovery and subsequent evidentiary hearing. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/6/2019:Mailed notice(srn, )

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Richardson v. Pfister et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Andre Richardson
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: Randy Pfister
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?