Hatfield v. USA
Petitioner: Everly K Hatfield
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 3:2012cv01110
Filed: October 18, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Office: East St. Louis Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: David R. Herndon
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER denying (Doc. 77 ) Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Everly K Hatfield. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 9/27/2021. (arm)
August 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER denying (Doc. 73 ) Motion to Vacate Judgment. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is DENIED to the extent that it challenges the integrity of his habeas proceeding and is otherwise DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 8/27/2021. (arm)
January 22, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER denying 66 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/22/2018. (ceh)
November 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration/Relief from Judgment filed by Everly K Hatfield. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/8/2017. (kmb2)
October 8, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 CLERK'S JUDGMENT dismissing case with prejudice. Approved by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/8/14. (cekf)
October 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Petitioner's motions to amend (Docs. 11 , 20 , 28 ) are DENIED. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 15 ) is DENIED. Petitioner's motion for extension of time (Doc. 17 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Petitio ner's discoverymotions (Docs. 19 , 21 , 22 ) are DENIED. Petitioner's motion to correct and amend error (Doc. 26 ) is GRANTED. Petitioner's objection that the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 25 ) is DENIED. P etitioner's motion requesting this Honorable Court Address the Full Contingency Issues Raised (Doc. 27 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Finally, petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. The Court shall not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/7/2014. (kbl)
January 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER denying 2 MOTION for Joinder, denying 3 MOTION for Recusal, and directing the government to respond to petitioner's 2255 motion. (The response is due by 2/4/2013.). Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 1/3/2013. (msdi)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hatfield v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Everly K Hatfield
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: USA
Represented By: Robert L. Garrison
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?