EVERETT v. LOCKETT
||DUVELL MOZART EVERETT
||March 23, 2011
||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
||Terre Haute Office
||Mark J. Dinsmore
|Nature of Suit:
||Habeas Corpus (General)
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|November 7, 2011
ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; In this case, habeas petitioner Duvell Everett seeks relief from his conviction for drug offenses in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but fails to show that a remedy via a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was or is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Because Everett cannot obtain either the review or the relief he seeks in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), the action must be dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/7/2011.(NKD)
|June 14, 2011
Entry Concerning Selected Matters; The motion for notification 10 signed by Darnell Moon requests the court to recognize Mr. Moon as petitioners "jailhouse lawyer" and to accept all motions and briefs filed by Mr. Moon on Mr. Everett 9;s behalf. This request 10 is denied because pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every filing must be signed by an attorney of record or by the unrepresented party. Mr. Moon has not appeared as an attorney licensed to prac tice in this district and a non-attorney cannot represent an individual in federal court. In addition to the motion for notification, Mr. Moon"filed" a motion for enlargement of time to file a reply. This motion 11 is denied for two rea sons: 1) the motion is not signed by the petitioner, Mr. Everett, and 2) the motion is premature because the respondent has not yet filed his response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners reply is due thirty days after service of the respondent's response. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/14/2011.(copy to petitioner via U. S. mail (VS)
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
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?