Payton (ID 66352) v. Werholtz et al
Petitioner:
Walter Almon Payton
Respondent:
Roger Werholtz, FNU LNU, Kansas, State of, Ray Roberts and Derek Schmidt
Case Number:
5:2013cv03066
Filed:
April 9, 2013
Court:
Kansas District Court
Office:
Topeka Office
County:
Reno
Presiding Judge:
Sam A. Crow
Nature of Suit:
Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:
28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:
None
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| June 4, 2013 | 17 |
ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 14 to alter or amend and motion 15 to compel disclosure are denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/4/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Walter Almon Payton by regular mail.) (smnd)
|
| May 21, 2013 | 13 |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 7 for reconsideration is construed as a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 5/21/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Walter Almon Payton by regular mail.) (smnd)
|
| April 29, 2013 | 5 |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court grants Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3 ); it is further ordered this matter is dismissed; and the court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/29/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Walter Almon Payton by regular mail.) (bt)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
