Bailey v. Nagy
Petitioner: Curtis Bailey
Respondent: Noah Nagy
Case Number: 2:2019cv12656
Filed: September 10, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Presiding Judge: Elizabeth A Stafford
Referring Judge: Arthur J Tarnow
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 10, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Curtis Bailey against Noah Nagy, Receipt No: 0645-7399171 - Fee: $ 5. [Possible companion case: Genesee County Circuit Court, 11-030007-FC, Judge Hayman] (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Court of Appeals ruling, #2 Exhibit Mich SC order, #3 Exhibit Court of Appeals order, #4 Exhibit Mich SC order) (Lawrence, James)

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: Bailey v. Nagy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Curtis Bailey
Represented By: James S. Lawrence
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Noah Nagy
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 [ 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?