Rouse v. Carroll County Detention Center et al
| Carroll County Detention Center, Major Harman, Sheriff Dewels and Colonel Hart |
| John Joseph Thomas Rouse and Honestus Bellatar-El |
| 1:2025cv00877 |
| March 17, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Brendan Abell Hurson |
| 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 May 1, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk PROVIDE a copy of this Order and a 2254 packet to Petitioner; GRANTING Petitioner 28 days from the date of this Order to supplement the Petition using the provided forms and to either pay the filing fee of $5.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Brendan Abell Hurson on 5/1/2025. (c/m w/forms 5/2/2025) (hmls, Deputy Clerk)
|
| Filing 3 New Case Notification Letter sent to John Joseph Thomas Rouse. (c/m to P on 3/19/25- ar6s, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 2 Deficiency Notice for John Joseph Thomas Rouse re: (ECF No. #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by John Joseph Thomas Rouse ); must be corrected by 4/16/2025 (c/m to P w/ IFP Form on 3/19/25- ar6s, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by John Joseph Thomas Rouse. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Attachment)(ar6s, Deputy Clerk) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
