Tucker v. Hulick et al
| 3:2006cv00998 |
| December 5, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| William D. Stiehl |
| Donald G. Wilkerson |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
53
ORDER granting 47 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 49 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 4/19/2012. (mab)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER DENYING 29 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Rinando T. Tucker. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 3/2/2012. (mab)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER SUBSTITUTING PARTY. Mike Atchison is substituted as the Respondent in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 12/12/11. (alg)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Rinando T. Tucker. Respondent Lisa Madigan terminated. Signed by Judge James L. Foreman on 12/11/06. (hbs)
|
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 Southern 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: Tucker v. Hulick et al | |
|---|---|
| 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.
