DOBBS v. WARDEN
| JAMES DOBBS |
| WARDEN |
| 4:2019cv00115 |
| May 24, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 6, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE re #6 Order on Motion for Clarification, filed by Petitioner JAMES DOBBS. (LBT) |
Filing 6
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - #5 Motion for Clarification is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have through July 24, 2019, in which to explain to the Court which trial court judgment or judgments he intended to challenge in his petition. The deadlines set forth in the Court's Order of June 4, 2019, are vacated. The Court will issue new deadlines after Petitioner responds. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/28/2019 (copy mailed to petitioner). (LBT)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Clarification of Judgment of Conviction Challenged by Petitioner, filed by Respondent WARDEN. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A. - Trial CCS FA-003, #2 Exhibit B - Trial CCS FA-004, #3 Exhibit C - Direct Appeal Docket CR-475, #4 Exhibit D - Direct Appeal Docket CR-586, #5 Text of Proposed Order)(Szyper, Caryn) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Caryn Nieman Szyper on behalf of Respondent WARDEN. (Szyper, Caryn) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (State Conviction) - James Dobbs's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges the petitioner's conviction and sentence in Indiana state court case number 69A01-0810-CA-475. Respondent is ORDERED to enter an appearance by 6/12/2019. 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 7/12/2019. If Track 1 does not apply, respondent is ORDERED to answer the petition by 8/2/2019. The Court does not anticipate extending respondent's deadlines absent respondent specifically setting forth extraordinary circumstances (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DEADLINES). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/4/2019 (copy mailed to petitioner).(LBT)
|
| Filing 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by JAMES DOBBS. (Filing fee $5, receipt number IP065212) (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(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: DOBBS v. WARDEN | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: WARDEN | |
| Represented By: | Caryn Nieman Szyper |
| 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: JAMES DOBBS | |
| 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.
