Thompson v. Hooper et al
| J. D. Thompson, III |
| Tim Hooper |
| Attorney General State of Louisiana |
| 2:2017cv11674 |
| November 1, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Washington |
| Nannette Jolivette Brown |
| Daniel E. Knowles |
| 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
36
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 . ORDERED: The petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED: Dismissed as Moot 35 MOTION for Writ of Mandamus and 34 MOTION to Order Respondents to Comply. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 2/23/2022.(lw)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER AND REASONS that petitioner's 7 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action CLOSED for statistical purposes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner file his state post-conviction applicati on with the state district court within thirty (30) days of this order and, if necessary, seek timely review of any denial of that application in the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction in this matter as stated in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/30/2018. (cms)
|
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 Louisiana 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
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.
