SWEENEY v. VANIHEL
CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR. |
FRANK VANIHEL |
2:2021cv00329 |
September 2, 2021 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Mark J Dinsmore |
James Patrick Hanlon |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew A. Kobe on behalf of Respondent FRANK VANIHEL. (Kobe, Andrew) |
Filing 7 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (State Conviction) - CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges the petitioner's conviction and sentence in Indiana state court case number 10C01-9403-CF-051. Respondent is ORDERED to enter an appearance by October 13, 2021. If respondent argues that all claims in the petition are subject to one of the procedural bars for dismissal outlined in Rule 5(b), respondent is ORDERED to file a motion to dismiss based on a complete procedural bar by November 12, 2021. If Track 1 does not apply, respondent is ORDERED to answer the petition by December 3, 2021. The Court does not anticipate extending respondent's deadlines absent respondent specifically setting forth extraordinary circumstances (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DEADLINES) The petitioner's motion for order to show cause, dkt. #6 , is denied as moot. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/1/2021.(TPS) |
Filing 6 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, filed by Plaintiff CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(TPS) |
Filing 5 Correspondence Regarding Filing Fee, filed by Plaintiff CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR (JRB) |
Filing 4 RECEIPT #IP075681 for Writ of Habeas Corpus fee in the amount of $5, paid by Petitioner. (LMK) |
Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (TPS) |
Filing 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Proposed Order)(TPS) |
Filing 1 CONSENT to Prisoner E-Service by CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR located at WVCF. Pursuant to General Order 2013-1, documents submitted by CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR 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. (TPS) |
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: SWEENEY v. VANIHEL | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: CHARLES E. SWEENEY, JR. | |
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 ] |
Defendant: FRANK VANIHEL | |
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.