Toney v. Lafler
Petitioner: Bruce Toney
Respondent: Blaine Lafler
Case Number: 2:2010cv12102
Filed: May 25, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Montcalm
Presiding Judge: Robert H Cleland
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER GRANTING 11 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal filed by Bruce Toney Signed by District Judge Robert H Cleland. (LWag)
June 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 5 OPINION and ORDER Dismissing Without Prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying Motion to Exceed Page Limit as Moot, and Denying a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Robert H Cleland. (CGre)
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: Toney v. Lafler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Bruce Toney
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: Blaine Lafler
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?