ANKH EL v. SMITH

ANKH EL v. SMITH

Petitioner:	MENES ANKH EL
Respondent:	BRIAN SMITH
Case Number:	2:2016cv00266
Filed:	June 27, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Terre Haute Office
Presiding Judge:	Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 5, 2016	Filing 4 Entry Directing Further Proceedings - The present action for habeas corpus relief brought by Menes Ankh El represents his most recent challenge to his conviction in No. 49G04-1208-FC-59353. A recent challenge, docketed as No. 1:16-cv-346-TWP-DKL, was dismissed without prejudice because his appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief was pending at the time that action was filed on February 8, 2016. The appeal just referenced was docketed in the Indiana Court of Appeals as No. 49A05-15 07-PC-00929. Public records of that Court show that the appeal was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2016 and that no petition for transfer had been filed as of July 1, 2016. The petitioner shall have such an opportunity. He shall have through August 1, 2016 in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed because of the petitioner's procedural default in failing to file a timely motion to transfer in No. 49A05-1507-PC-00929 following the dismissal of that appeal on May 19, 2016. (See Order.) Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/5/2016.(BRR)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 5, 2016

Filing 4 Entry Directing Further Proceedings - The present action for habeas corpus relief brought by Menes Ankh El represents his most recent challenge to his conviction in No. 49G04-1208-FC-59353. A recent challenge, docketed as No. 1:16-cv-346-TWP-DKL, was dismissed without prejudice because his appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief was pending at the time that action was filed on February 8, 2016. The appeal just referenced was docketed in the Indiana Court of Appeals as No. 49A05-15 07-PC-00929. Public records of that Court show that the appeal was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2016 and that no petition for transfer had been filed as of July 1, 2016. The petitioner shall have such an opportunity. He shall have through August 1, 2016 in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed because of the petitioner's procedural default in failing to file a timely motion to transfer in No. 49A05-1507-PC-00929 following the dismissal of that appeal on May 19, 2016. (See Order.) Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/5/2016.(BRR)

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: ANKH EL v. SMITH
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: MENES ANKH EL
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: BRIAN SMITH
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?