Jones v. Watson

Jones v. Watson

Petitioner:	D'Marques Jones
Respondent:	Warden Tom Watson
Case Number:	3:2025cv00098
Filed:	January 20, 2025
Court:	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
January 20, 2025	Filing 2 Motion to supplement memorandum in support of 2254 petition filed by Petitioner D'Marques Jones. Related document(s) #1 . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit State motion to invoke SYO, #2 Exhibit SYO invocation hearing transcript 1, #3 Exhibit SYO invocation hearing transcript 2, #4 Exhibit Order and Judgment entry invoking SYO sentence, #5 Exhibit Petition for post-conviction relief, #6 Exhibit Supplement to petition, #7 Exhibit court opinions, #8 Exhibit 2020 9th Dist. opinion on the merits, #9 Exhibit pleadings on remand, #10 Exhibit 2020 juvenile court dismissal on the merits, #11 Exhibit delayed appeal related pleadings, #12 Exhibit 9th Dist. briefing on the merits, #13 Exhibit attorney withdraw, #14 Exhibit supplemental briefing regarding jurisdictional question, #15 Exhibit 2023 9th Dist. decision regarding jurisdiction, #16 Exhibit Supreme Court of Ohio decision declining jurisdiction)(Kessler, Stephanie)
January 20, 2025	Filing 1 Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody. Filing fee paid $ 5, receipt number AOHNDC-12916882.. Filed by D'Marques Jones. (Kessler, Stephanie)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 20, 2025

Filing 2 Motion to supplement memorandum in support of 2254 petition filed by Petitioner D'Marques Jones. Related document(s) #1 . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit State motion to invoke SYO, #2 Exhibit SYO invocation hearing transcript 1, #3 Exhibit SYO invocation hearing transcript 2, #4 Exhibit Order and Judgment entry invoking SYO sentence, #5 Exhibit Petition for post-conviction relief, #6 Exhibit Supplement to petition, #7 Exhibit court opinions, #8 Exhibit 2020 9th Dist. opinion on the merits, #9 Exhibit pleadings on remand, #10 Exhibit 2020 juvenile court dismissal on the merits, #11 Exhibit delayed appeal related pleadings, #12 Exhibit 9th Dist. briefing on the merits, #13 Exhibit attorney withdraw, #14 Exhibit supplemental briefing regarding jurisdictional question, #15 Exhibit 2023 9th Dist. decision regarding jurisdiction, #16 Exhibit Supreme Court of Ohio decision declining jurisdiction)(Kessler, Stephanie)

January 20, 2025

Filing 1 Petition under 28 USC 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody. Filing fee paid $ 5, receipt number AOHNDC-12916882.. Filed by D'Marques Jones. (Kessler, Stephanie)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: Jones v. Watson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: D'Marques Jones
Represented By:	Stephanie Franxman Kessler
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 Tom Watson
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.

Why Is My Information Online?