EASLEY v. PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
| KENT EASLEY |
| SUPERINTENDENT and PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY |
| 1:2011cv00280 |
| February 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| 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
29
ORDER - denying 25 Motion; denying 26 Motion; denying 27 Motion; The petitioner's motion for leave to compel documents 25 , the petitioner's motion for leave to re-open, amend after dismissal based on newly discovered evidence 26 , and the petitioner's motion for leave for stay of proceedings 27 are each DENIED. The petitioner's motion for leave to re-open based on newly discovered evidence 26 shall be docketed as the habeas petition in a new civil action on the clerk's civil docket. *** SEE ENTRY ***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/24/2012. cm (CKM)
|
|
Filing
5
ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters; SUPERINTENDENT added. PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY terminated. Because Easleys habeas petition appears on its face to be deficient based on the circumstances discussed in Part II.A., II.B. and II.C. of this Entry, he shall have through March 21, 2011, in which to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. cm. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/10/2011.(CKM)
|
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 Indiana 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
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.
