White v. Griffith

White v. Griffith

Petitioner:	David Germaine White
Respondent:	Cindy Griffith
Case Number:	4:2017cv01332
Filed:	April 13, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
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
December 8, 2017	Filing 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners application for writ of habeas corpus [Doc.#1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 12/8/17. (CLA)
May 26, 2017	Filing 5 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue at this time as to respondent, because the instant petition appears to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause within thirty (30) days ofthe date of this Order as to why the Court should not dismiss the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus as time- barred. Petitioner's failure to file a show cause response shall result in the denial of the instant habeas corpus petition and the dismissal of this action. 2 ( Response to Court due by 6/26/2017.) Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 5/26/17. (CLA)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 8, 2017

Filing 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners application for writ of habeas corpus [Doc.#1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 12/8/17. (CLA)

May 26, 2017

Filing 5 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue at this time as to respondent, because the instant petition appears to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause within thirty (30) days ofthe date of this Order as to why the Court should not dismiss the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus as time- barred. Petitioner's failure to file a show cause response shall result in the denial of the instant habeas corpus petition and the dismissal of this action. 2 ( Response to Court due by 6/26/2017.) Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 5/26/17. (CLA)

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: White v. Griffith
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: David Germaine White
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: Cindy Griffith
Represented By:	Stephen D. Hawke(Designation State / Local Government)
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?