Williams v. Britten et al
| Michael B. Williams |
| K. Britten, Michigan Department of Correctional and Kym Worthy |
| 2:2022cv12605 |
| October 31, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| David R. Grand |
| Bernard A Friedman |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Michael B. Williams re #3 Regarding Parties Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Changes (NAhm)
|
|
FILING FEE Received in the amount of 5.00 by Michael B. Williams - Receipt No. 150002654 [No Image Associated with this docket entry] (BHan)
|
|
Filing 3
Notice Regarding Parties' Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Changes (KCas)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION and Declaration in support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Michael B. Williams. (LGra)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Michael B. Williams against K. Britten, Michigan Department of Correctional, Kym Worthy. (Attachments: #1 Document Continuation Part 2, #2 Document Continuation Part 3, #3 Document Continuation Civil Cover Sheet) (LGra) (Main Document 1 replaced on 10/31/2022) (LGra). (Attachment 1 replaced on 10/31/2022) (LGra). (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/31/2022) (LGra).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
