Murray v. Prelesnik et al
| 2:2006cv13283 |
| July 20, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Unassigned |
| Other |
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
58
OPINION and ORDER Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying a Certificate of Appealability and Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment and Compelling Answer Addressing Petition's Merits and the Rule 5 Materials. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
|
|
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Granting Motion to Lift Stay and Ordering the Clerk of the Court to Reopen these Habeas Proceedings, Directing Petitioner to File an Amended Petition, Ordering Service Upon Respondent and Directing Respondent to File any Supplemental Responsive Materials and Denying Petitioner's Motion for the Appointment of Substitute Counsel. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (PMil)
|
|
Filing
40
OPINION and ORDER granting request re 39 Letter, for permission to resubmit 35 MOTION to Stay re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Willie Murray. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DGoo)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Murray v. Prelesnik et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
