Hudson v. Hammer

Hudson v. Hammer

Defendant:	Steve Hammer
Petitioner:	Wilfred Carl Hudson
Case Number:	0:2016cv03017
Filed:	September 8, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office:	DMN Office
County:	Washington
Presiding Judge:	Tony N. Leung
Presiding Judge:	John R. Tunheim
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
January 3, 2018	Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 27 ; overruling Petitioner's objections 32 36 ; denying Petitioner's Motions for Leave to Appeal 32 and for Certificate of Appealability 36 ; denying Petitioner's Motion to Grant Petition 21 ; granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition 11 ; dismissing with prejudice Petition under U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person in State Custody; For the purpose of appeal, the Court does NOT grant a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). (Written Opinion)Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 1/3/2018. (JMK)
August 11, 2017	Filing 28 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing with prejudice 1 the Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, denying 21 Motion to Dismiss Petition under USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person in State Custody filed by Wilfred Carl Hudson, and granting 11 Motion to Dismiss/General filed by Steve Hammer (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on August 11, 2017. (HAZ)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 3, 2018

Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 27 ; overruling Petitioner's objections 32 36 ; denying Petitioner's Motions for Leave to Appeal 32 and for Certificate of Appealability 36 ; denying Petitioner's Motion to Grant Petition 21 ; granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition 11 ; dismissing with prejudice Petition under U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person in State Custody; For the purpose of appeal, the Court does NOT grant a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). (Written Opinion)Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 1/3/2018. (JMK)

August 11, 2017

Filing 28 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing with prejudice 1 the Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, denying 21 Motion to Dismiss Petition under USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person in State Custody filed by Wilfred Carl Hudson, and granting 11 Motion to Dismiss/General filed by Steve Hammer (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on August 11, 2017. (HAZ)

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: Hudson v. Hammer
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Wilfred Carl Hudson
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 ]
Defendant: Steve Hammer
Represented By:	Lori H Conroy
Represented By:	James B Early
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?