Martin v. White
| Rozell Deshun Martin |
| Randy White |
| 1:2016cv00177 |
| November 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Bowling Green Office |
| Logan |
| Greg N. Stivers |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers on 3/27/2020. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Objections (DN 97 , 99 ) to the Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 95 ) are OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation (DN 95 ) is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of this Court. Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Relief (DN 1 ) is DISMISSED. The issuance of a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) is DENIED. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (DN 93 ) and Petitioner's Motion to Proceed Pro Se (DN 98 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. cc: Rozell Deshun Martin, pro se; Counsel (CDF)
|
|
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 6/1/2018. Martin's motions for an evidentiary hearing (DN 33 ) and for the appointment of counsel (DN 32 ) are GRANTED. Evidentiary hearing is SET for 8/31/20 18 at 10:00 a.m., CDT, in Bowling Green, Kentucky, before Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl. Bryce L. Caldwell is appointed as CJA counsel for Martin and will represent Martin at the evidentiary hearing. The Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Corrections shall TRANSPORT the prisoner, Rozell Deshun Martin, to Bowling Green, Kentucky, no later than 8/31/2018, at 10:00 a.m., CDT. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Department of Corrections shall return the prisoner to the said institution. cc: Rozell Deshun Martin, pro se; Counsel; MLG (CDF)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 1/25/2018. The Warden shall conduct appropriate inquiries to determine whether Martin's July, 2015 11.42 motion was received by the prison's mailroom with suf ficient postage, and submit a brief by 3/13/2018. Martin may file a response brief by 3/27/2018. The Warden shall investigate whether the Logan Circuit Court order of August 4, 2017 was sent to the prison, and if so, submit a memorandum detailing why Martin's incoming mail log does not reflect that he received notice of the unfavorable decision by 3/13/2018. Martin may file a response brief by 3/27/2018. cc: Rozell Deshun Martin, pro se; Counsel (CDR)
|
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 Western 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: Martin v. White | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Rozell Deshun Martin | |
| 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: Randy White | |
| 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.
