Davison v. Warden Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections
| James A. Davison |
| Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction |
| 3:2022cv00269 |
| September 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Michael R Merz |
| Michael J Newman |
| 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 February 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF REPLY DEADLINE - When ordering an answer in this habeas corpus case, the Court provided that Petitioner's reply or traverse would be due twenty-one days after Respondent filed his Answer and the State Court Record. Those two documents have been filed today (ECF Nos. #5 and #6 ). Accordingly Petitioner's deadline for filing his reply or traverse is December 8, 2022. Having been notified that Warden Shoop is the actual custodian of Petitioner, the Court hereby amends the caption as set forth above. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/17/22. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 6 RETURN of Writ re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #5 State Court Record by Defendant Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (Fosnaught, Jerri) |
| Filing 5 State Court Record (Exhibits 1-35 bookmarked). (Fosnaught, Jerri) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Jerri Lynne Fosnaught for Defendant Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (Fosnaught, Jerri) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER TO ANSWER, Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall, not later than sixty days from the date of this Order November 18, 2022,. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/19/20. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)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@ohioattorneygeneral.gov and Habeas.docketclerk@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
|
| Filing 2 Filing Fee Received: $ 5.00, Receipt No. 300000209. (bjr) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by James A. Davison. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (bjr) |
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: Davison v. Warden Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: James A. Davison | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction | |
| Represented By: | Jerri Lynne Fosnaught |
| 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.
