Miller v. McBee
| Shannon Louise Miller |
| Chris McBee |
| 4:2021cv00493 |
| April 27, 2021 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Nannette A Baker |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 13, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, July 15, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred and for failure to exhaust available state remedies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's supplemental petition [ECF No. 9] is STRICKEN from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail to plaintiff a copy of this Courts May 21, 2021 Memorandum and Order. [ECF No. 8] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice. Show Cause Response due by 7/15/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on June 24, 2021. (MCB) (Memorandum and Order and doc. 8 sent to petitioner this date.)
|
|
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 10. sent to non-electronic party this date. Thu Jun 24 13:45:16 CDT 2021 (Berg, Melanie)
|
| Filing 9 *DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED ON JUNE 24, 2021. *SUPPLEMENTAL re #1 Petition by Petitioner Shannon Louise Miller. (MCB) Modified on 6/24/2021 (MCB). |
|
Filing 8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, June 21, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred and for failure to exhaust available state remedies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed, without prejudice. ( Show Cause Response due by 6/21/2021.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on May 21, 2021. (MCB)
|
|
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 8. sent to non-electronic party this date. Fri May 21 10:36:48 CDT 2021 (Berg, Melanie)
|
| Judge Baker enters a Standing Order in all of her cases as follows: See Order for details #https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/judge/nannette-baker (EAB) |
| Filing 7 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. (Potter, Jacob) |
| Filing 6 Case transferred in from District of Missouri Western; Case Number 4:21-cv-00262. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. Case transferred in electronically. |
| Case electronically transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Davies, Cindy) |
| 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: U.S. Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker. (JWD) |
| ***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. (JWD) |
| ***Complaint Letter Processed (see notice of electronic filing for distribution list) Tue Apr 27 16:01:24 CDT 2021 (admin,) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: (1) Petitioner is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 and subject to modification by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; (2) Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #3 ) is denied without prejudice, subject to modification by the Eastern District of Missouri; and(3) this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for all further proceedings. Signed on 4/19/2021 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Willis, Kathy)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for appointment of counsel filed by Shannon Louise Miller. (Willis, Kathy) |
| Filing 2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by Shannon Louise Miller. (Willis, Kathy) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Shannon Louise Miller (Attachment: #1 2254 Exhibits)(Willis, Kathy) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Miller v. McBee | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Shannon Louise Miller | |
| 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: Chris McBee | |
| 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 ] |
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.
