Williams et al v. United States
| Raymond F. Williams and US Technology Corporation |
| United States |
| 5:2022cv00271 |
| February 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| James G Carr |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Motion for reconsideration of motion to appoint counsel filed by Petitioner Raymond F. Williams. (Attachments: #1 Attachments: Court Orders, #2 Envelope)(D,TM) |
Order: [non-document] Having been notified that petitioner renews his #5 request of previously denied appointment of counsel in this case 28 U.S.C. 2241 because, according to him, this is a criminal case, and finding and concluding the petitioner is mistaken and that this is a civil matter. It is hereby ordered that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel hereby is denied. Judge James G. Carr on 3/15/2022. (D,TM)
|
| Copy of [non-document order dated 3/15/2022] on Motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel mailed to Raymond F. Williams, 1105 Genoa Avenue NW, Massillon, OH 44646 on 3/15/2022. (D,TM) |
| Filing 4 Civil Cover Sheet filed by Raymond F. Williams. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(M,TL) |
| Filing 3 Supplement to petition filed by Petitioner Raymond F. Williams. Related document(s) #1 . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Motion, #2 Envelope)(K,L) Modified event and text on 3/8/2022 (M,TL). |
| Copy of [non-document] Order on Motion for appointment of counsel dated 3/2/2022 mailed to Raymond F. Williams, 1105 Genoa Avenue NW, Massillon, OH 44646 on 3/2/2022. (D,TM) |
|
Order: [non-document] Pending is plaintiff's #2 motion to appoint counsel, the court does not have authority to "appoint counsel" for purposes of compensation in civil cases. On occasion, once the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment are pending or in the court's assessment of the complaint, the court may, on its own, "assign" counsel to represent a pro se plaintiff without compensation. Such assignment is solely at the court's discretion, and motions by pro se plaintiffs to assign counsel are neither allowed nor granted. Such "assignments" are at the sole discretion of the court and dependent entirely upon the willingness of counsel, upon receiving a request for such assignment the court to accept an appointment upon assignment. Accordingly it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel be and the same hereby is denied. Judge James G. Carr on 3/2/2022. (D,TM)
|
| Filing 2 Motion for Appointment of a Public Defender filed by US Technology Corporation and Raymond F. Williams. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(K,L) |
| Filing 1 Petition under 28 USC 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Filing fee paid: $5.00. Receipt # 54660008423. Filed by Raymond F. Williams and US Technology Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Memorandum and Order, #2 Exhibit Article, #3 Exhibit Definition of Solid Waste, #4 Envelope) (K,L) |
| Judge James G. Carr assigned to case. (K,L) |
| Remark by Clerk: This case was assigned and processed without the filing of a Civil Cover Sheet, which is required by Local Rule 3.13(a). A copy of #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and a blank Civil Cover Sheet will be mailed to Reymond Williams at 1105 Genoa Avenue NW Massillon, Ohio 44646 on 2/22/2022. Related document(s) #1 . (K,L) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker. (K,L) |
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.
