BATTERTON v. BELL
| ANDREW BATTERTON |
| BELL |
| 2:2018cv00466 |
| October 16, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Doris L Pryor |
| James R Sweeney |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 4, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Reply re #8 Return to Order to Show Cause, filed by ANDREW BATTERTON. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DMW) |
| Filing 8 RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, re #6 Order to Show CauseTerminate Motions, filed by BELL.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- Merk Declaration, #2 Attach 1 - Judgment Criminal Case No. 12-10090-001 dated 3/4/13, #3 Attach 2 - Amended Judgment Crim Case No. 12-10090-001 dated 4/11/2016, #4 Attach 3 - Order Regarding Motion Sentence Reduction dated 4/18/2016, #5 Attach 4 - Amended Judgment Crim Case No. 12-10090-001 dated 12-5-2017, #6 Attach 5 - Amended Order Regarding Motion Sentence Reduction dated 12-5-2017, #7 Attach 6 - PS 5331.02 Early Release Procedures Under 18 USC 3621(e), #8 Attach 7 - PS 5162.05 Categorization of Offenses effective March 16, 2009, #9 Attach 8 - BOP Form AO942 Request 3621(e) Offense Review dated 11/24/2017)(Woods, Shelese) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Shelese M. Woods on behalf of Respondent BELL. (Woods, Shelese) |
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - The United States is notified of the filing of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and of the supporting memorandum. The respondent shall have until December 5, 2018, in which to answer the allegations of the habeas petition, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. The petitioner shall have twenty-eight days after service of the answer in which to reply. The petitioner's motion to expedite, dkt #4 , is granted to the extent that this action shall be resolved as soon as practical. (See Order.) Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 10/25/2018. (DMW)
|
| Filing 5 RECEIPT #IP062565 for filing fee in the amount of $5.00, paid by Petitioner. (DJH) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Expedite, filed by Petitioner ANDREW BATTERTON. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(DMW) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH) |
| Filing 2 Brief re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by ANDREW BATTERTON. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DJH) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by ANDREW BATTERTON. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(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: BATTERTON v. BELL | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: BELL | |
| Represented By: | Shelese M. Woods |
| 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: ANDREW BATTERTON | |
| 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.
