Weinhaus v. Vandergriff
Petitioner: Jeffrey Weinhaus
Respondent: David Vandergriff
Case Number: 4:2021cv00264
Filed: March 2, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: Nannette A Baker
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MANDATE of USCA as to #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey Weinhaus USCA #:21-1750 In accordance with the judgment and pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above-styled matter. Appeal is dismissed. (MCB)
June 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 USCA JUDGMENT as to #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey Weinhaus. Before ERICKSON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. This appeal comes before the court on appellant's application for a certificate of appealability. Th e court has carefully reviewed the original file of the district court, and theapplication for a certificate of appealability is denied. The appeal is dismissed.(MCB)
April 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER of USCA as to #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey Weinhaus USCA Appeal #: 21-1750 If the original file of the United States District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by Eighth Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with Eighth Circuit Local Rule 30A(a)(2), the Clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER, including any documents maintained in paper format or filed under seal, exhibits, CDs, videos, administrative records and state court files. These documents should be submitted within 10 days. (KXS)
April 5, 2021 Filing 8 Initial Notification from USCA for #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey Weinhaus USCA Appeal Number: 21-1750(KXS)
April 2, 2021 Filing 7 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL AND NOA SUPPLEMENT by clerk to USCA regarding #5 Order of Dismissal (case - Stipulation of Dismissal). Notice of Appeal filed on 4/1/2021 by Petitioner Jeffrey Weinhaus. NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTY: FILE REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT WITH DISTRICT COURT CLERKS OFFICE.(JKL)
April 1, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #5 Order of Dismissal (case - Stipulation of Dismissal), #4 Opinion, Memorandum & Order by Petitioner Jeffrey Weinhaus. (MCB)
March 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on March 4, 2021. (MCB)
March 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Jeffrey Weinhaus' request to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Jeffrey Weinhaus' petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. #1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on March 4, 2021. (MCB)
March 4, 2021 Opinion or Order ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 4, 5. sent to non-electronic party this date. Thu Mar 4 16:26:36 CST 2021 (Berg, Melanie)
March 2, 2021 Filing 3 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (FLJ)
March 2, 2021 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Petitioner Jeffrey Weinhaus. (JKL)
March 2, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Petitioner Jeffrey Weinhaus. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JKL)
March 2, 2021 Case Opening Notification: All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. Judge Assigned: Honorable Nannette A. Baker. (JKL)
March 2, 2021 ***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. (JKL)
March 2, 2021 ***Complaint Letter Processed (see notice of electronic filing for distribution list) Tue Mar 2 14:00:52 CST 2021 (admin,)

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: Weinhaus v. Vandergriff
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: David Vandergriff
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: Jeffrey Weinhaus
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?