Thomas v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Petitioner: Markques Thomas
Respondent: Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Case Number: 1:2013cv00919
Filed: December 19, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: WARREN
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Barrett
Presiding Judge: Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER denying as Moot respondent's 14 Motion to Strike petitioner's objection to respondent's motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 8/18/2014. (art)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thomas v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Represented By: Mary Anne Reese
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 ]
Petitioner: Markques Thomas
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?