SISK v. SUPERINTENDANT
| GEORGE SISK |
| SUPERINTENDANT |
| PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only) |
| 1:2015cv01199 |
| July 30, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| 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
41
Entry Concerning Selected Matters - Accordingly, his appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [dkt 35] is denied. The petitioner's renewed motions for the issuance of a certificate of appealability [dkt 36 and 37] are denied for the reasons explained in Part IV of the Entry issued on March 22, 2016.(See order). Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/22/2016. (JLS)
|
|
Filing
31
Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - For the reasons explained in this Entry, Sisk's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be DENIED and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Sisk's current custodian is substituted as respondent. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See order). Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/22/2016.(JLS)
|
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.
