Stewart v. Beltz
Petitioner: Matthew Scott Stewart
Respondent: Tracy Beltz
Case Number: 0:2019cv02638
Filed: October 2, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Presiding Judge: Tony N Leung
Referring Judge: Wilhelmina M Wright
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 2, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing fee $5, receipt number 4-104823) filed by Matthew Scott Stewart. Case assigned to Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright per 3rd/4th Prisoner list, referred to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Envelope) (JGK) cc: Stewart.

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: Stewart v. Beltz
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Tracy Beltz
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 ]
Petitioner: Matthew Scott Stewart
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?