DeClue v. Villmer

Petitioner: John DeClue
Respondent: Tom Villmer
Case Number: 4:2014cv00798
Filed: April 24, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Francois
Presiding Judge: Terry I. Adelman
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 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
May 1, 2014 Filing 3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/1/14. (MRS)
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: DeClue v. Villmer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Tom Villmer
Represented By: Stephen D. Hawke
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: John DeClue
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?