Back v. Chandler
Case Number: 2:2006cv00210
Filed: November 27, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: Covington Office
Presiding Judge: David L. Bunning
Presiding Judge: J. Gregory Wehrman
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
November 27, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 3 MEMORANDUM ORDER: 1) The document tendered by petitioner are construed as a new petition for writ of habeas corpus. The warden of the Kentucky State Penitentiary is deemed to be the appropriate respondent; 2) Denying at this time, 2 MOTION to Appoi nt Counsel by Thomas Back; 3) The Clerk shall send the petitioner the appropriate form for filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254; 4) Petitioner shall complete habeas corpus form by 12/27/2006, following which this case shall be resubmi tted to the magistrate Judge for further consideration; 5) Should petitioner fail to file an appropriate petition for writ of habeas corpus within the time period provided, this proceeding will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge J. Gregory Wehrman. (Attachments: # 1 Petition)(JMM)cc: COR
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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Back v. Chandler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?