Boyce v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Ramon Boyce |
Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution |
2:2023cv03240 |
October 3, 2023 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Michael R Merz |
Thomas M Rose |
Edmund A Sargus |
Peter B Silvain |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 TRANSFER ORDER - With the consent of District Judges Rose and Sargus and of Magistrate Judges Silvain and Merz, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Clerk shall re-assign this case from Judge Sargus to Judge Rose; 2. The Magistrate Judge reference in this case is hereby transferred from Judge Silvain to Judge Merz. 3. Because this case arises from a conviction in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, the case shall remain venued in the Eastern Division and no new Western Division case shall be opened. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/25/23. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Judge Thomas M. Rose and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz added. Judge Edmund A. Sargus and Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr no longer assigned to case. (pb) |
Filing 3 ORDER - Accordingly, Respondent is ORDERED to file an answer conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases WITHIN SIXTY DAYS of the date of filing of this Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve the Petition on Respondent and the Attorney General of Ohio, Habeas Corpus Unit of the Corrections Litigation Section c/o Brian.Higgins@OhioAGO.gov and Habeas.docketclerk@OhioAGO.gov. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr on 10/23/23. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing fee (Habeas): $ 5.00, receipt number 200004478 (kk2) |
Filing 2 Notice of Deficiency: The Court's docket reflects the initiation of the above referenced civil action. The initiating material contains the following deficiency(ies):Filing Fee Missing. The materials do not include the filing fee ($5) or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (provided). Related Document: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ramon Boyce. (kh)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Ramon Boyce. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (kh) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Boyce v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: Ramon Boyce | |
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, Chillicothe Correctional Institution | |
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.