DANIELS v. REGAL
| RA'MAR DANIELS |
| DENNIS REGAL |
| 1:2021cv03068 |
| December 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
Respondent's Notice of 42-day Extension of Deadline to File a Return to Order Show Cause, filed by DENNIS REGAL. Return to Order to Show Cause deadline is 3/14/2022. (Corey, David)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER - granting #6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/13/2022. (CKM)
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Petitioner RA'MAR DANIELS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Inmate Trust Account) (CKM)
|
|
Filing 5
CONSENT to Prisoner E-Service by RA'MAR DANIELS located at PENDLETON CF. Pursuant to General Order 2013-1, documents submitted by RA'MAR DANIELS to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E-Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (CKM)
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE of Appearance by David Corey on behalf of Respondent DENNIS REGAL. (Corey, David)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Disciplinary) - Petitioner Ra'mar Daniels's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges his disciplinary conviction in ISR 21-09-0039 on October 18, 2021. The custodian of petitioner is directed to answer the allegations of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. Show Cause Response due by 1/31/2022. The petitioner shall have through January 20, 2022, in which to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate his financial inability to do so (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/20/2021. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)
|
|
Filing 2
MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by RA'MAR DANIELS. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 letter and request for interview)(DJH)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: DANIELS v. REGAL | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: RA'MAR DANIELS | |
| 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: DENNIS REGAL | |
| Represented By: | David Corey |
| 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.
