Clarke v. Stovall
| 5:2005cv60151 |
| June 29, 2005 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| John Corbett OMeara |
| Steven D Pepe |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
63
ORDER denying 61 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
|
|
Filing
57
OPINION and ORDER Denying 41 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying a Certificate of Appealability, but Granting Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER Requiring Response to 41 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Response due: 9/29/2010; Denying 46 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing, Granting 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying 52 MOTION for Investiga tive Services/Private Investigator, Denying 50 MOTION for a Psychiatric Evaluation and a Post Trumatic Stress Disorder Expert Witness, Denying without prejudice 49 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing, Granting 43 MOTION TO EXTEND time to file traverse, Denying 47 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Clarke v. Stovall | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
