Noble v. Napier
| Thomas E Noble |
| Stephanie Napier |
| 1:2023cv12134 |
| September 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Richard G Stearns |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Copy of Clerk's Office fee schedule, affidavit accompanying motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis, and contact information for the First Circuit Court of Appeals, mailed to petitioner on 10/24/2023. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 12 Letter/inquiry re cost of notice of appeal and address for the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals from Thomas E. Noble. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 11 Copy re 10 Order on Motion for Hearing mailed to petitioner on 10/17/2023. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 10 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re #9 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. This motion is DENIED, the court having no jurisdiction to hear the matter. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for an Evidentiary Hearing by Thomas E. Noble. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 8 Copy re 7 Order on Motion to Stay, mailed to petitioner on 10/12/2023. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 7 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Motion to Stay #6 is DENIED. As previously explained in the order #4 denying the petition and dismissing this case, this court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge to Petitioners conviction in the District of Delaware. If Petitioner elects to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 with the sentencing court, he may, as needed, advance any relevant arguments about the timeliness of said motion with the sentencing court. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Stay Dismissal Order by Thomas E. Noble. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 5 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(PSSA, 3) |
| Filing 4 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. The petition is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED.(PSSA, 3) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Hoefle on behalf of Stephanie Napier (Hoefle, Sarah) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (Phillips, Sophie) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Thomas E Noble.(Castilla, Francis) |
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 Massachusetts 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: Noble v. Napier | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Thomas E Noble | |
| 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: Stephanie Napier | |
| Represented By: | Sarah Hoefle |
| 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.
