Moore v. Rothgery
| Michael B. Moore |
| Judge Rothgery |
| 1:2019cv02722 |
| November 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| John R Adams |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| IMPORTANT: Prepare now and avoid delays logging in later. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio [OHND] will be upgrading CM/ECF to the Next Generation of CM/ECF [NextGen] on February 10, 2020. Information regarding NextGen can be found # on the court's website.Preparing for NextGen CM/ECF is a multi-step process. Step one is to obtain or upgrade your PACER account. Currently, attorneys within a firm may share a PACER account. This will not be allowed with NextGen. Each attorney must have their own upgraded PACER account. If you are using a shared PACER account, register for a new PACER account by clicking # here.If you have an upgraded PACER account for another NextGen court or your PACER account was created after August 10, 2014, no further action is required at this time. If neither applies, you must upgrade your legacy PACER account. If this is not done, you will be unable to e-file after February 10, 2020. Instructions for linking your PACER account to your CM/ECF account will be sent in February. If you still have questions, please contact the PACER Service Center at 800-676-6854 or the Clerk's Office Help Desk at 1-800-355-8498. (SL) (ADI) |
| Filing 3 Administrative Track DCM Initial Order. Chief Judge Patricia A. Gaughan. (Y,A) |
| Filing 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Michael B. Moore. (Attachments: #1 Financial Application, #2 Inmate Account Summary)(Y,A) |
| Filing 1 Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody. Filing fee not paid, IFP. Filed by Michael B. Moore. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Statement of the Case and Facts, #3 Transcript from Lorain County Common Pleas, #4 Lorain Common Pleas Docket, #5 Lorain County Decision and Journal Entry) (Y,A) |
| Judge John R. Adams assigned to case, (Y,A) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz. (Y,A) |
| Copy of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), #3 Administrative Track DCM Initial Order mailed to Michael B. Moore at 9896 Murray Ridge Road, Elyria, OH 44035 on 11/20/19. Related document(s) #1 , #3 . (Y,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.
Access this case on the Ohio Northern 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: Moore v. Rothgery | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Michael B. Moore | |
| 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: Judge Rothgery | |
| 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.
