Barr v. Ramey
Petitioner: Timmy Lee Barr
Respondent: Eileen Ramey
Case Number: 4:2020cv01628
Filed: November 17, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: Audrey G Fleissig
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 18, 2020 Opinion or Order ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 7. Fri Dec 18 13:54:29 CST 2020 (Shirley, Kelley)
December 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion (Docket No. #6 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/18/20. (KJS)
December 14, 2020 Filing 6 PRO SE MOTION Directed to Courts Jurisdiction by Petitioner Timmy Lee Barr. (KJS)
December 14, 2020 Opinion or Order ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 4,5. Mon Dec 14 11:40:54 CST 2020 (Shirley, Kelley)
December 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (ECF No. #1 ) is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/14/20. (KJS)
December 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (ECF No. #1 ) is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. #2 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. #3 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/14/20. (KJS)
November 18, 2020 ***Complaint Letter Processed (see notice of electronic filing for distribution list) Wed Nov 18 10:01:25 CST 2020 (admin,)
November 18, 2020 Case Opening Notification: Judge Assigned: Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig. (DLB)
November 18, 2020 ***Complaint Letter Created. This is to advise you that this office has received and filed your complaint and has assigned it the above-referenced case number. (DLB)
November 17, 2020 Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Petitioner Timmy Lee Barr. (DLB)
November 17, 2020 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Petitioner Timmy Lee Barr. (DLB)
November 17, 2020 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Petitioner Timmy Lee Barr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Correspondence, #3 Envelope, #4 Judge Assignment Label)(DLB)

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: Barr v. Ramey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Eileen Ramey
Represented By: Office of Missouri Attorney General - Habeas Division
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: Timmy Lee Barr
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?