MAY v. BRADLEY

MAY v. BRADLEY

Petitioner:	RUSSELL THOMAS MAY
Respondent:	ERIC BRADLEY
Case Number:	3:2019cv00005
Filed:	January 10, 2019
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Presiding Judge:	Cynthia Reed Eddy
Referring Judge:	Kim R Gibson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
January 23, 2019	Filing 2 ORDER - the Petition has been received without a filing fee or the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis in a habeas case. Upon review, the Court has determined that the Petition contains no allegations which would support a request for federal habeas review. Rather, the Petitioner is clearly asserting claims for the violation of constitutional rights. If Plaintiff is in fact seeking to bring a lawsuit alleging that Petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated, Petitioner must file a new lawsuit using the form Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, which is attached. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this CASE CLOSED. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 1/23/2019. (bsc)
January 10, 2019	Filing 1 Remark: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus lodged with no filing fee or In Forma Pauperis motion. (Attachments: #1 Habeas Petition Part 2, #2 Habeas Petition Part 3, #3 Table of Exhibits, #4 Exhibits A-L Part 1, #5 Exhibits A-L Part 2, #6 Exhibits M-V Part 1, #7 Exhibits M-V Part 2, #8 Exhibits W-F Part 1, #9 Exhibits W-F Part 2, #10 Envelope) (ept)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 23, 2019

Filing 2 ORDER - the Petition has been received without a filing fee or the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis in a habeas case. Upon review, the Court has determined that the Petition contains no allegations which would support a request for federal habeas review. Rather, the Petitioner is clearly asserting claims for the violation of constitutional rights. If Plaintiff is in fact seeking to bring a lawsuit alleging that Petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated, Petitioner must file a new lawsuit using the form Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, which is attached. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this CASE CLOSED. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 1/23/2019. (bsc)

January 10, 2019

Filing 1 Remark: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus lodged with no filing fee or In Forma Pauperis motion. (Attachments: #1 Habeas Petition Part 2, #2 Habeas Petition Part 3, #3 Table of Exhibits, #4 Exhibits A-L Part 1, #5 Exhibits A-L Part 2, #6 Exhibits M-V Part 1, #7 Exhibits M-V Part 2, #8 Exhibits W-F Part 1, #9 Exhibits W-F Part 2, #10 Envelope) (ept)

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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MAY v. BRADLEY
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: RUSSELL THOMAS MAY
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: ERIC BRADLEY
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?