Williams v. Steele

Williams v. Steele

Petitioner:	Belvin Leonard Williams, Jr.
Respondent:	Troy Steele
Case Number:	4:2018cv00515
Filed:	April 6, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Francois
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
August 31, 2021	Filing 23 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Belvin Williams for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Nos. 1 , 22 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be issued, bec ause Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability). Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 08/31/2021. (ANP)
September 24, 2020	Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the petition to Mr. Gipson. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gipson shall sign the petition and return it to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Gipson fails to comply with this Order, petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus may be dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 9/24/20. (Note: Petition returned this date.) (ARL)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 31, 2021

Filing 23 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Belvin Williams for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Nos. 1 , 22 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be issued, bec ause Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability). Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 08/31/2021. (ANP)

September 24, 2020

Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the petition to Mr. Gipson. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gipson shall sign the petition and return it to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Gipson fails to comply with this Order, petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus may be dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 9/24/20. (Note: Petition returned this date.) (ARL)

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: Williams v. Steele
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Belvin Leonard Williams, Jr.
Represented By:	Kent E Gipson
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: Troy Steele
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?