Rudisill v. USA

Petitioner: Timnah Rudisill
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 1:2013cv00084
Filed: March 25, 2013
Court: North Carolina Western District Court
Office: Asheville Office
County: Buncombe
Presiding Judge: Martin Reidinger
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
June 10, 2015 6 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 5 Corrected Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance, and this case shall be held in abeyance pending Fourth Circuit's resolution of United States v. Surratt, No. 14-6851. Govt shall have 45 days from issuance of Fourth Circuit's mandate in Surratt to file its response to Petitioner's 1 motion to vacate. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/10/15. (ejb)

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

Search for this case: Rudisill v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Timnah Rudisill
Represented By: Ann L. Hester
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: USA
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 [ 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?