Taylor v. United States of America
Johnny Taylor and Johnnie Lamont Taylor |
United States of America |
5:2019hc02234 |
August 14, 2019 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
Terrence W Boyle |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Motion Submitted to Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding #6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. (Love, L.) |
Filing 6 MOTION to Appoint Attorney filed by Johnny Taylor. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Stouch, L.) |
Filing 5 Letter from Johnny Taylor regarding false imprisonment. (Attachments: #1 Document in Support, #2 Envelope) (Love, L.) |
Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Johnny Taylor. (Attachment: #1 Envelope) (Love, L.) |
Case Submitted to Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle for initial review. (Love, L.) |
Filing 3 ORDER OF DEFICIENCY - The filing fee of $5.00 was not received or application to proceed without payment of fees and affidavit was not submitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 8/15/2019. Copy of order and application to proceed without payment of fees sent via US Mail to Johnny Taylor at Butner - F.M.C. (Love, L.) |
Filing 2 Letter regarding case opening sent via US Mail to Johnny Taylor at Butner - F.M.C. (Indig, A.) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Johnny Taylor. (Attachments: #1 Document in Support, #2 Envelope) (Indig, A.) |
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.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.