Lumsden v. Nessel
Petitioner: Allan Wilson Lumsden
Respondent: Dana Nessel
Case Number: 2:2026cv13232
Filed: September 4, 2026
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Presiding Judge: Mark A Goldsmith
Referring Judge: Elizabeth A Stafford
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: No cause code entered
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 8, 2026 FILING FEE Received in the amount of $5 by Allan Wilson Lumsden - Receipt No. 150021955 [No Image Associated with this docket entry] (NAhm)
September 4, 2026 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Allan Wilson Lumsden against Dana Nessel. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (MSyl)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Lumsden v. Nessel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Allan Wilson Lumsden
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Dana Nessel
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 [ 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?