Monk v. Gray
| Daniel Monk |
| Warden David Gray |
| 3:2018cv02941 |
| December 21, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Christopher A Boyko |
| Kathleen B Burke |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 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 forty-five (45) 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. (Related document #1 ). Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke on 1/30/2019. (D, I) |
| Copy of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) mailed to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, 30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215; Copy of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) and #4 Magistrate Judge's Initial Order mailed to David Gray Warden at Belmont Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, OH 43950; And #4 Magistrate Judge's Initial Order mailed to Daniel Monk #A719-104 at Belmont Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, OH 43950 on 1/31/2019. (D, I) |
Filing 3
Order referring case to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for report and recommendation and pursuant to Local Rule 72.1. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 1/7/2019. (H,CM)
|
| Copy of #3 Order of Referral mailed to Daniel Monk, #A719-104 at Belmont Correctional, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, OH 43950 on 1/7/2019. Related document(s) #3 . (H,CM) |
| Filing 2 Administrative Track DCM Initial Order. Chief Judge Patricia A. Gaughan. (S,SR) |
| Filing 1 Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody (with affidavit and motion to proceed IFP). Filing fee paid, $5.00. Receipt # 14660110340. Filed by Daniel Monk. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A-Supreme Court of Ohio letter and notice of appeal, #3 envelope) (S,SR) |
| Copy of #2 Administrative Track DCM Initial Order, #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), mailed to Daniel Monk #A719-104 at Belmont Correctional Institution P.O. Box 540 St. Clairsville OH 43950 on 12/21/2018. (S,SR) |
| Judge Christopher A. Boyko assigned to case, (S,SR) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke. (S,SR) |
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: Monk v. Gray | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Daniel Monk | |
| 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: Warden David Gray | |
| 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.
