Lewis v. State Of Ohio
| Kenneth O. Lewis |
| Warden, London Correctional Institution |
| 2:2024cv04033 |
| October 7, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Karen L Litkovitz |
| Sarah D Morrison |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER FOR ANSWER AND FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY - It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall file an answer conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases within sixty (60) days of the date of filing of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/3/2024. (kh)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification, and to Habeas Corpus Unit of the Corrections Litigation Section c/o [email protected] and [email protected].)
|
| Filing 5 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kenneth O. Lewis. (kh) |
| Filing 4 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 100004808. (kh) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Stay and Abeyance by Petitioner Kenneth O. Lewis. (Attachments: #1 2254 Petition, #2 2254 petition- exhibit) (er) |
|
NOTATION ORDER finding as moot #1 Motion for Extension of Time per #2 Deficiency Order signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/18/2024. (kev)
|
|
Filing 2
DEFICIENCY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/18/2024. If Petitioner intends to proceed with this action, he is ORDERED to submit a completed and signed petition for habeas corpus specifying the conviction and sentence he wishes to challenge, his grounds for relief, and the specific relief sought within thirty (30) days, along with either the filing fee of $5.00 or an application and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED to send Petitioner a copy of the Court's official 2254 form and an Application and Affidavit By Incarcerated Person to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees form. Petitioner's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Federal Habeas Corpus Writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [] 2254 is DENIED as moot. (kev)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 1 MOTION for an enlargement of time to file federal habeas corpus writ. New date requested 1/6/2025. By Petitioner Kenneth O. Lewis. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope) (mve) |
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 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: Lewis v. State Of Ohio | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Kenneth O. Lewis | |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Warden, London 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 | [ 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.
