Todd v. Ceno et al
| Jerome Eugene Todd |
| A Ceno, Mr Keller, K Platts and W E Mackelburg |
| 6:2020cv01205 |
| March 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Kevin McDonald |
| Margaret B Seymour |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1361 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 7, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #22 Order Dismissing Case, #23 Judgment placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to Jerome Eugene Todd 33233-086 Lewisburg US Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 1000 Lewisburg, PA 17837 (kric, ) |
| Filing 23 JUDGMENT dismissing the case without prejudice. (kric, ) |
Filing 22
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 5/6/2020. (kric, )
|
| Filing 20 MOTION for Hearing with oral arguments by Jerome Eugene Todd. Response to Motion due by 5/18/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.Motions referred to Kevin McDonald.(kric, ) |
| Filing 18 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Jerome Eugene Todd re 12 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Hearing, (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(kric, ) |
| Filing 17 OBJECTIONS by Jerome Eugene Todd to 8 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(kric, ) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Default Judgment as to all respondents by Jerome Eugene Todd. Response to Motion due by 5/15/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 cover letter, #2 Envelope)No proposed order.Motions referred to Kevin McDonald.(kric, ) |
| Filing 13 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 12 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Hearing,, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to Jerome Eugene Todd 3233-086 FCI Estill Special Housing Unit 2-A PO Box 699 Estill, SC 29918 (kric, ) |
|
Filing 12
TEXT ORDER denying #10 Emergency Motion to Amend petition; denying #11 Motion for Hearing. On April 2, 2020, the plaintiff was informed that his case was not in proper form for service, and he was provided with instructions on how to bring his case into proper form (doc. 5). At this time, the plaintiff has not brought his case into proper form; as such, his #10 , #11 motions are denied as premature. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 4/27/20.(ctuc, )
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Hearing by Jerome Eugene Todd. Response to Motion due by 5/8/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Idaho order continuing hearing, #2 Envelope)No proposed order.Motions referred to Kevin McDonald.(kric, ) |
| Filing 10 EMERGENCY MOTION to amend #1 Petition by Jerome Eugene Todd. Response to Motion due by 5/7/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 NEF pages, #2 Envelope)No proposed order.Motions referred to Kevin McDonald.(kric, ) Modified on 4/27/2020 to edit relief.(kric, ). |
| Filing 9 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 8 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to Jerome Eugene Todd 33233-086 FCI Estill PO Box 699 Estill, SC 29918 (kric, ) |
|
Filing 8
TEXT ORDER denying #7 motion for pretrial proceedings. The petitioner's motion is difficult to decipher. However, to the extent the petitioner's request could be construed as requesting recusal, such a request is denied because the petitioner has not shown that the undersigned has any direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in this matter. See Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927). Neither has the petitioner shown that the undersigned possesses an actual, subjective bias, or that as an objective matter it is likely that the average judge in the undersigned's position would possess unconstitutional bias. See Williams v. Penn., 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1905 (2016) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, to the extent the petitioner seeks recusal, the request lacks merit and is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 4/17/20.(ctuc, )
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for pretrial proceedings by Jerome Eugene Todd. Response to Motion due by 4/27/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A Letter to CMC Brown, #2 USM285 from, #3 Envelope)No proposed order.Motions referred to Kevin McDonald.(kric, ) |
| Filing 6 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #5 Proper Form Order, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to Jerome Eugene Todd 33233-086 FCI Estill PO Box 699 Estill, SC 29918 with 1 blank summons and 4 blank USM285 forms as directed. (kric, ) |
|
Filing 5
PROPER FORM ORDER Case to be brought into proper form by 4/23/20. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. The Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect this matter as brought seeking a Writ of Mandamus. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 4/2/20. (ctuc, )
|
| Filing 2 TRUE DIVISION FOR TRIAL: Anderson. (kric, ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Jerome Eugene Todd. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(kric, ) |
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 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
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.
