Belfield v. Bowersox

Belfield v. Bowersox

Petitioner:	Michael Gene Belfield
Respondent:	Michael S. Bowersox
Case Number:	4:2015cv01063
Filed:	July 8, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	Within US but Outside District
Presiding Judge:	Ronnie L. White
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
January 26, 2016	Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that petitioner's application 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 petitioner's request for injunction barring his transfer is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on January 26, 2016. (BRP)
October 8, 2015	Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fai ls to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for a copy of his petition and exhibits is [Doc. # 5 ] DENIED, as these documents number over a hundred pages in length. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on October 8, 2015. (BRP)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 26, 2016

Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that petitioner's application 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 petitioner's request for injunction barring his transfer is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on January 26, 2016. (BRP)

October 8, 2015

Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fai ls to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for a copy of his petition and exhibits is [Doc. # 5 ] DENIED, as these documents number over a hundred pages in length. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on October 8, 2015. (BRP)

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: Belfield v. Bowersox
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael Gene Belfield
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: Michael S. Bowersox
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 ]

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?