Hicks v. Lewis

Hicks v. Lewis

Petitioner:	Joseph J. Hicks
Respondent:	Jason Lewis
Case Number:	1:2018cv00153
Filed:	June 19, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	Cape Girardeau Office
County:	Mississippi
Presiding Judge:	John M. Bodenhausen
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
November 26, 2018	Filing 8 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Petitioner Joseph J. Hicks. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #7] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's applicat ion for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED AND DISMISSED as time-barred. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #3] is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 11/26/18. (CSG)
October 26, 2018	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed. Show Cause Response due by 11/26/2018. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 10/26/18. (CSG)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 26, 2018

Filing 8 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Petitioner Joseph J. Hicks. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #7] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's applicat ion for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED AND DISMISSED as time-barred. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #3] is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 11/26/18. (CSG)

October 26, 2018

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed. Show Cause Response due by 11/26/2018. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 10/26/18. (CSG)

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hicks v. Lewis
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Joseph J. Hicks
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: Jason Lewis
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?