BOYD v. SUPERINTENDENT

Petitioner: ENOCSHA BOYD
Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT
Case Number: 1:2017cv02734
Filed: August 10, 2017
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge: Larry J. McKinney
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 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
December 6, 2017 11 Opinion or Order of the Court Entry Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 9 Motion to Dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed as moot. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/6/2017. (Copy mailed to Petitioner) (MEJ)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BOYD v. SUPERINTENDENT
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: ENOCSHA BOYD
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT
Represented By: Abigail T. Rom
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 [ 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?