Appling v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
| Donald Darnell Appling |
| Michigan Department of Corrections and Heidi Washington |
| 2:2022cv13040 |
| December 15, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| David M Lawson |
| Patricia T Morris |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 16, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER Denying #4 Motion. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)
|
| Filing 3 JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)
|
| TEXT-ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re #5 Order on Motion on Donald Darnell Appling at Donald Darnell Appling 588037, CENTRAL MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 320 HUBBARD, ST. LOUIS, MI 48880. (SPin) |
| TEXT-ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re #3 Order, #2 Order Dismissing Case on Donald Darnell Appling at Donald Darnell Appling 588037, CENTRAL MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 320 HUBBARD, ST. LOUIS, MI 48880. (SPin) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Waive Fees by Donald Darnell Appling. (SKra) |
| Filing 1 MOTION TO EXTEND time to file petition for Habeas Corpus by Donald Darnell Appling. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet) (SKra) |
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.
