Grant v. Bivens et al
| Thomas John Grant |
| Carlos Bivens and Maryland Attorney General |
| 1:2022cv01466 |
| June 15, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Stephanie A Gallagher |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER granting Plaintiff 28 days from the date of this Order to provide this Court with further information regarding his entitlement to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitation. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 8/1/2022. (jb5s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m-08/01/2022)
|
| Filing 4 RESPONSE to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Carlos Bivens, Maryland Attorney General. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit State Record)(DiMiceli, Andrew) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; giving Respondents 40 days from the date of this order to file an Answer to the Petition. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 6/29/2022. (jb5s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m-06/29/22-Petitioner & Respondents)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Thomas John Grant(jb5s, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Thomas John Grant. (Attachments: #1 Envelope Front and Back, #2 Exhibit)(jb5s, Deputy Clerk) |
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 Maryland 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.
