Virostek v. Black
| Michael J Virostek and Michael J. Virostek |
| Warden Kenneth Black |
| 1:2022cv02166 |
| December 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Pamela A Barker |
| Carmen E Henderson |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
Attorney Appearance by William H. Lamb filed by on behalf of Kenneth Black. (Lamb, William)
|
|
Filing 7
Order denying without prejudice Petitioner's #4 Motion for appointment of counsel and denying as moot and premature Petitioner's #6 Motion for leave to file supplement relief instanter. Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson on 1/19/2023. (S,KL)
|
|
Filing 6
Motion for leave to file supplement relief instanter filed by Petitioner Michael J. Virostek. Related document(s) #1 . (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (H,Ch)
|
|
Filing 5
Magistrate Judge's Initial Order. Respondent shall file an Answer (Return of Writ) to the petition within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the filing of Respondent's Return of Writ to file a Reply (Traverse). Respondent shall have fifteen (15) days from the filing of Petitioner's Traverse to respond thereto. Any request for an extension of any deadline must be made at least three (3) business days before the deadline date, but such requests will not be routinely granted. Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson on 1/6/2023. (S,KL)
|
|
Copy of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) mailed to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost at 30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215; Copy of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), #3 Administrative Track DCM Initial Order and #5 Magistrate Judge's Initial Order mailed to Warden Black at Richland Correctional Institute, 1001 Olivesburg Road, Mansfield, OH., 44905; and copy of #5 Magistrate Judge's Initial Order mailed to Petitioner Michael J. Virostek #A781749 at Richland Correctional Institute, 1001 Olivesburg Road, Mansfield, OH., 44905 on 1/6/2023. (S,KL)
|
|
Order [non-document] denying as moot petitioner's #2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner Virostek paid the filing fee on 12/02/2022. Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson on 1/6/2023.(S,KL)
|
|
Filing 4
Motion for appointment of counsel with memorandum in support filed by Petitioner Michael J Virostek. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Mc,K)
|
|
Filing 3
Administrative Track DCM Initial Order. Chief Judge Patricia A. Gaughan. (Mc,K)
|
|
Filing 2
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Michael J Virostek. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Indigence, #2 Inmate Demand Statement, #3 Affidavit of Indigency, #4 Inmate Balance, #5 Envelope) (Mc,K)
|
|
Filing 1
Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody. Filing fee paid $5.00. Receipt # 14660142301. Filed by Michael J. Virostek. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #3 Envelope) (Mc,K)
|
|
Automatic Reference [non-document] of Administrative Action to Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. Judge Pamela A. Barker on 12/2/2022. (P,K)
|
|
Judge Pamela A. Barker assigned to case. (Mc,K)
|
|
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson. (Mc,K)
|
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
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.
