Washington v. Stonebreaker
Petitioner: Clayton J. Washington
Respondent: Donnie Stonebreaker, Warden Evans Corr. Inst.
Case Number: 9:2023cv03655
Filed: July 28, 2023
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Presiding Judge: Timothy M Cain
Referring Judge: Molly H Cherry
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 28, 2023 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5.00 Receipt number 300105950.), filed by Clayton J. Washington. (Attachments: #1 Supporting Documents, #2 Envelope)(dgar)

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 this case: Washington v. Stonebreaker
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Clayton J. Washington
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: Donnie Stonebreaker, Warden Evans Corr. Inst.
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?