Powe v. Wolfenbarger
Petitioner: Branden Powe
Respondent: Hugh Wolfenbarger
Case Number: 2:2011cv11875
Filed: April 28, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Macomb
Presiding Judge: Denise Page Hood
Presiding Judge: Mark A. Randon
Nature of Suit: 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
April 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 26 OPINION and ORDER 1) Denying Amended 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2) Denying Certificate of Appealability, and 3) Granting Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
February 6, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER granting 15 Petitioner's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Administratively Closing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
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: Powe v. Wolfenbarger
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Branden Powe
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: Hugh Wolfenbarger
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?