Thornton v. Cheatham
Petitioner: Ervin Junius Thornton, II
Respondent: Roy Cheatham
Case Number: 2:2019cv13068
Filed: October 18, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Presiding Judge: Sean F Cox
Referring Judge: Elizabeth A Stafford
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 31, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 31, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER DISMISSING Duplicative 2255 Petition and Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
October 18, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ervin Junius Thornton, II against Roy Cheatham, Receipt No: 0645-7449368 - Fee: $ 5. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Law, #2 Certificate of Service) (Dunn, Robert)

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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thornton v. Cheatham
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Roy Cheatham
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 ]
Petitioner: Ervin Junius Thornton, II
Represented By: Robert J. Dunn
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.


Why Is My Information Online?