Talbott v. Fisher
| Richard D. Talbott |
| Scott Fisher |
| 0:2010cv01553 |
| April 15, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Pine |
| Jeffrey J. Keyes |
| Patrick J. Schiltz |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
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
43
ORDER ADOPTING 38 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Petitioner Richard D. Talbott's motion to amend [Docket No. 40] is GRANTED. 2. Talbott's motion to present supplemental authority [Docket No. 42] is GRANTED. 3. The Court OVERRULES Talbott& #039;s objection [Docket No. 39] and ADOPTS Judge Keyes's Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 38]. 4. Talbott's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Docket No. 1] is DENIED. 5. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 5/27/11. (LPH)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER - Based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court SUSTAINS Talbott's objection 27 and DECLINES TO ADOPT Judge Keyes's R&R 23 . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The government' s motion to dismiss and for a stay 9 is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows: To the extent that the government moves to dismiss Talbott's petition for lack of jurisdiction, the motion is DENIED. To the extent that the government see ks an extension of time to file a return to Talbott's petition, the motion is GRANTED. Judge Keyes will set deadlines related to the government's return in a separate order. Talbott's motion for the relief sought in his petition 12 is DENIED. Talbott's motion to be released on recognizance bond 20 is DENIED. This matter is referred back to Judge Keyes for further proceedings. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 12/20/10. (bjs)
|
|
Filing
23
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above, and on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Section 2241 Habeas Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction and Stay of Filing a Return Pending Disposition of Motion (Doc. No. 9 ), be GRANTED; 2. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Doc. No. 1 ), be DISMISSED. 3. Petitioner 9;s Motion to Grant Relief Prayed for in Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 12 ), be DENIED AS MOOT; and 4. Petitioner's Petition/Motion for Release on [R]ecognizance Bond (Doc. No. 20), be DENIED AS MOOT. Objections to R&R due by 11/4/2010 Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes on 11/21/2010. (MMP)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Talbott v. Fisher | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Richard D. Talbott | |
| 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: Scott Fisher | |
| Represented By: | Gregory G Brooker |
| 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.
