SHELLY v. WARDEN
| MARZONO REVELON SHELLY |
| WARDEN |
| 2:2018cv00499 |
| November 14, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Doris L Pryor |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 2, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, re #4 Order to Show Cause, filed by WARDEN.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - CCS, #2 Exhibit B - DA Dkt., #3 Exhibit C - DA Appellant's, #4 Exhibit D - DA Appellee's, #5 Exhibit E - DA Reply, #6 Exhibit F - DA Memo Decision, #7 Exhibit G - PCR CCS, #8 Exhibit H - PCR Dkt., #9 Exhibit I - PCR Appellant's, #10 Exhibit J - PCR Appellee's, #11 Exhibit K - PCR Memo Decision)(Drum, Jesse) |
| Filing 6 RECEIPT #IP062891 for Habeas filing fee in the amount of $5.00, paid by Petitioner. (REO) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Jesse R. Drum on behalf of Respondent WARDEN. (Drum, Jesse) |
Filing 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Petitioner shall have through December 17, 2018, in which to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate his financial inability to do so. Respondent is ORDERED to enter an appearance by November 26, 2018. If respondent intends to brief the merits in addition to any of those procedural bars, respondent is ORDERED to answer the petition by January 17, 2019. Petitioner shall have 28 days to reply to the return to the order to show cause. The Court does not anticipate extending respondent's deadlines absent respondent specifically setting forth extraordinary circumstances. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/16/2018. (DMW)
|
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by MARZONO REVELON SHELLY. (No fee paid with this filing) (REO) |
| Filing 1 CONSENT to Prisoner E-Service by MARZONO REVELON SHELLY located at WVCF. Pursuant to General Order 2013-1, documents submitted by MARZONO REVELON SHELLY 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. (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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: SHELLY v. WARDEN | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: MARZONO REVELON SHELLY | |
| 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: WARDEN | |
| Represented By: | Jesse R. Drum |
| 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.
