Clark v. Redington
Petitioner: Nathan D Clark
Respondent: Daniel Redington
Case Number: 4:2021cv00452
Filed: June 28, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: Howard F Sachs
Referring Judge: Prisoner Pro Se
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 6, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER granting #10 Petitioner's motion for an extension of time, to and including September 10, 2021, in which to file a reply to the State's response. The Clerk shall send Petitioner a copy of the State's response along with notification of this Order. Signed on August 6, 2021, by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (McCoy, Mike)
August 6, 2021 Filing 10 PETITIONER'S MOTION for extension of time to file reply to Doc. #8 filed by Nathan D Clark. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/20/2021. (Davies, Cindy)
July 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER that Petitioner file a reply to the State's response (Doc. 8) by August 27, 2021. Signed on July 27, 2021, by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (McCoy, Mike)
July 27, 2021 Filing 8 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Daniel Redington. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Kweskin, Benjamin)
July 13, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER: Petitioner's motion for appointed counsel (Doc. #3 ) is denied without prejudice, noting that the State's response to the petition is due on July 29, 2021. Signed on 7/13/2021 by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. (Willis, Kathy)
June 30, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE of appearance by Benjamin Jared Kweskin on behalf of Daniel Redington (Attorney Benjamin Jared Kweskin added to party Daniel Redington(pty:res))(Kweskin, Benjamin)
June 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) Respondent answer Petitioner's allegations and show cause on or before July 29, 2021, why the relief Petitioner seeks should not be granted. Signed on June 29, 2021 by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Davies, Cindy)
June 28, 2021 Filing 3 PETITIONER'S MOTION for appointment of counsel filed by Nathan D Clark. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/13/2021. (Davies, Cindy)
June 28, 2021 Filing 2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by Nathan D Clark. (Davies, Cindy)
June 28, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Nathan D Clark. (Attachment: #1 Exhibits)(Davies, Cindy)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clark v. Redington
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Daniel Redington
Represented By: Benjamin Jared Kweskin
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: Nathan D Clark
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?