BOYKINS v. WARDEN
Petitioner: DE'ADRIAN BOYKINS
Respondent: WARDEN
Case Number: 1:2020cv02910
Filed: November 5, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Mark J Dinsmore
Referring Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Respondent WARDEN. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1: CCS, No. FB-248, #2 Exhibit 2: Docket, No. CR-510, #3 Exhibit 3: Appellant's Brief, No. CR-510, #4 Exhibit 4: Appellee's Brief, No. CR-510, #5 Exhibit 5: Mem. Decision, No. CR-510, #6 Exhibit 6: Pet. to Trans., No. CR-510, #7 Exhibit 7: Docket, No. PC-134, #8 Exhibit 8: CCS, No. PC-83, #9 Exhibit 9: Order, No. PC-83, #10 Exhibit 10: CCS, No. PC-18, #11 Exhibit 11: Order, No. PC-18, #12 Exhibit 12: Docket, No. CR-1503, #13 Exhibit 13: NOA, No. CR-1503, #14 Exhibit 14: Order, No. CR-1503)(Murray, Sierra)
November 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Sierra A. Murray on behalf of Respondent WARDEN. (Murray, Sierra)
November 12, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Jesse R. Drum on behalf of Respondent WARDEN. (Drum, Jesse)
November 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (State Conviction) - DE'ADRIAN BOYKINS's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges the petitioner's conviction and sentence in Indiana state court case number 02D05-1312-FB-248. Petitioner shall have through 12/7/20, in which to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate his/her financial inability to do so. Respondent is ORDERED to enter an appearance by 11/18/20. If respondent argues that all claims in the petition are subject to one of the procedural bars for dismissal outlined in Rule 5(b), respondent is ORDERED to file a motion to dismiss based on a complete procedural bar by 12/18/20. If Track 1 does not apply, respondent is ORDERED to answer the petition by 1/8/21. The Court does not anticipate extending respondent's deadlines absent respondent specifically setting forth extraordinary circumstances (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DEADLINES). Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 11/6/2020.(NAD) Modified on 11/9/2020 - Correct Judge's name in docket text (NAD).
November 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO)
November 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by DE'ADRIAN BOYKINS. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - State Court documents)(REO)

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: BOYKINS v. WARDEN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: WARDEN
Represented By: Jesse R. Drum
Represented By: Sierra A. Murray
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 ]
Petitioner: DE'ADRIAN BOYKINS
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?