Hughes v. King

Hughes v. King

Petitioner:	Robert Michael Hughes
Respondent:	John King
Case Number:	0:2010cv00450
Filed:	February 17, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the District of Minnesota
County:	Washington
Presiding Judge:	Davis
Presiding Judge:	Nelson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 10, 2010	Filing 18 ORDER. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: A certificate of appealability shall not issue 15 (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/7/10. (GRR)
April 20, 2010	Filing 12 ORDER. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation dated March 4, 2010 3 . 2. Petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpu s 1 is DENIED. 3. Petitioners application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. 4. Motion for Time Extension or Tolling for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Filing 4 is DENIED. 5. Motion of Response to State of Minnesota Rebuttal Letter Da ted April 7, 2010 9 is DENIED because the document is not actually a motion, but, instead, is an additional objection to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court has considered in reaching its decision. 6. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 4/20/10. (GRR)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 10, 2010

Filing 18 ORDER. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: A certificate of appealability shall not issue 15 (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/7/10. (GRR)

April 20, 2010

Filing 12 ORDER. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation dated March 4, 2010 3 . 2. Petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpu s 1 is DENIED. 3. Petitioners application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. 4. Motion for Time Extension or Tolling for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Filing 4 is DENIED. 5. Motion of Response to State of Minnesota Rebuttal Letter Da ted April 7, 2010 9 is DENIED because the document is not actually a motion, but, instead, is an additional objection to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court has considered in reaching its decision. 6. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 4/20/10. (GRR)

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hughes v. King
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Michael Hughes
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: John King
Represented By:	Matthew Frank
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	[ Unicourt \| 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?