England v. Simpson
| 5:2006cv00091 |
| June 5, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Paducah Office |
| Thomas B. Russell |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
97
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 9/11/2018; re 94 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 3/6/17; re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Stevie Lyn England. A separate order and judgment shall enter. cc:counsel, petitioner pro se (KJA)
|
|
Filing
74
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 7/29/16 re 73 Notice (Other) filed by Stevie Lyn England: The Clerk is directed to REDOCKET Docket 73 (Notice of Incomplete Submission of Record) as amotion for an order directing Re spondent to provide him a complete statecourt record. The parties shall TREAT the redocketed motion as any other motion under Local Rule 7.1.1. Petitioner is direct to FILE his reply to Respondent's response in opposition to his petition on or before Monday, 8/29/2016. cc: Counsel, Petitioner (pro se) (DJT)
|
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: England v. Simpson | |
|---|---|
| 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.
