Stanko v. Stirling et al
1:2019mc00380 |
November 19, 2019 |
US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
Aiken Office |
Other |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 11 ORDER granting Petitioner's 1 motion to appoint counsel and appointing E. Charles Grose, Jr. as lead counsel and Joseph J. Perkovich as second chair counsel contingent on his filing of a pro hac vice motion; granting Pe titioner's 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; directing counsel to file an ex parte confidential proposed litigation budget within thirty days of this order; directing Respondent's counsel to file a complete record of state court proceedings to date in connection of this matter within thirty days of this order; directing Petitioner to file a petition of writ habeas corpus within ninety days of this order; and directing Petitioner to file any amended petition by the expi ration of the limitation period prescribed by the AEDPA. (Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 2/17/2020, Confidential proposed litigation budget and complete record of state court proceedings due by 12/19/2019.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 11/19/2019. (lbak) |
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 South Carolina 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: Stanko v. Stirling et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.