Thomas v. Roy
Petitioner: DeSean Lamont Thomas
Respondent: Tom Roy
Case Number: 0:2017cv02790
Filed: July 12, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Chisago
Presiding Judge: Hildy Bowbeer
Presiding Judge: Donovan W. Frank
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 4, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER: The application of Petitioner Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. No. 75 ) is GRANTED. Petitioner Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen Els self-styled letter/motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 76 ) is DENIED. Consistent with Chisago County Judge Suzanne Bollman's Amended Order Granting Name Change (Doc. No. [77-1]), the Clerk's Office is directed to change Petitioner's name to Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/4/2018. (las) cc: Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El. Modified text on 10/4/2018 (MMP).
September 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's July 27, 2018 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 50 ) is ADOPTED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Petition (Doc. No. 1 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas&# 039;s Motion to Enforce Writ (Doc. No. 18 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Expedited Motion to Enter Judgment or in the Alternative Release Petitioner Until Such Judgment is Entered (Doc. No. 19 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Tho mas's Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 25 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion to Stay in Abeyance (Doc. No. 29 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. No. 31 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean T homas's Motion to Amend Name and/or Correct Clerical Error (Doc. No. 37 ) is GRANTED IN PART to direct the Clerk's Office to change the case heading to reflect Thomas's new legal name and DENIED IN PART in all other respects. Peti tioner DeSean Thomas's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 42 ) is DENIED. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion to Order the U.S. Marshal to Transport DeSean Lamont Thomas to USDC for Hearing on July 27, 2018 (Doc. No. 43 ) is DE NIED AS MOOT. Petitioner DeSean Thomas's Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 48 ) is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No certificate of appealability will be issued. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/13/2018. (las)
September 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's August 7, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9 ) is ADOPTED; and 2. Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 7 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/12/2017. (BJS)
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: Thomas v. Roy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: DeSean Lamont Thomas
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: Tom Roy
Represented By: Peter R Marker
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?