LONG v. DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER
Petitioner: BOBBY RAY LONG
Respondent: DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER
Case Number: 1:2009cv00652
Filed: May 26, 2009
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
County: Hendricks
Presiding Judge: David Frank Hamilton
Presiding Judge: Debra McVicker Lynch
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
July 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ENTRY. Petitioner Long's request to expand his habeas corpus action to include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DENIED for the reasons discussed herein. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 7/20/2009. c/m. (LBK)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LONG v. DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: BOBBY RAY LONG
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: DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER
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?