Walker v. Rose
| Lamont Walker |
| D. Rose |
| 7:2022cv00105 |
| October 31, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| William O Bertelsman |
| P SO |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Filing fee received - $ 5, receipt number 700000236 (RCB)
|
|
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: #7 Filing Fee Received (RCB)
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION for Reconsideration re #5 Order Dismissing Case, filed by Lamont Walker pro se. Motions referred to PSO. (Attachments: #1 Envelope Postmarked 12/15/2022) (TDA)
|
|
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: re #6 MOTION for Reconsideration re #5 Order Dismissing Case, by Lamont Walker. (TDA)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: 1. Walker's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28:2241 (R. #1 ) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. This matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from docket of Court. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 12/8/2022. (TDA) cc: Lamont Walker by US Mail
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER: 1. Clerk send Walker an Affidavit of Assets/In Forma Pauperis Application (Form AO-240) and a Certificate of Inmate Account (EDKY Form 523). 2. Within 30 days, Walker must either pay $5 filing fee or (1) have EDKY Form 523 certified by prison staff, (2) complete the Form AO-240, and (3) file both with Court. 3. Court will deny petition without prejudice if neither $5 filing fee nor properly supported motion to proceed in forma pauperis is received w/in 30 days. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 11/2/2022. (Attachments: #1 Form AO 240, #2 EDKY Form 523) (TDA) cc: Lamont Walker w/ forms by US Mail
|
|
Filing 3
IMPORTANT NOTICE to Pro Se Filer: Information relating to pro se filings and F.R.Civ.P. 5.2 requiring personal identifiers be partially redacted from documents filed with the court. #Click here for more information on the rules. It is the sole responsibility of counsel and the parties to comply with the rules requiring redaction of personal data identifiers. (Attachments: #1 Sample Caption Page) cc: pro se filer via U.S. Mail (TDA)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (No Filing fee paid), filed by Lamont Walker pro se. (Attachments: #1 Envelope Postmarked 10/28/2022) (TDA)
|
|
Conflict Check run. (TDA)
|
|
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - no filing fees paid nor Mtn IFP filed. (TDA)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Walker v. Rose | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Lamont Walker | |
| 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: D. Rose | |
| 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.
