Williams v. Maye
Petitioner: Martin T. Williams
Respondent: Claude Maye
Case Number: 5:2013cv03005
Filed: January 10, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office: Topeka Office
County: Leavenworth
Presiding Judge: Richard D. Rogers
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The petition for habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner's motions 4 & 11 to expedite are denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 9/19/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Martin T. Williams by regular mail.) (smnd)
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Williams v. Maye
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Martin T. Williams
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: Claude Maye
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?