Rogers v. Hampton
| Roy Len Rogers |
| Willaim K Hampton |
| 1:2018cv00207 |
| September 4, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Harry S Mattice |
| Christopher H Steger |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #8 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . Responses due by 11/26/2018. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 11/2/2018. (SAC, ) Modified on 11/2/2018, Order mailed to Rogers. (SAC, ).
|
| Filing 8 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Willaim K Hampton. (Douglas, Richard) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER denying as moot #5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Since it does not plainly appear from the face of the Petition that it should be summarily dismissed, Respondent is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the Petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts. Respondent should specifically address whether the Petition was timely filed and whether Petitioner has exhausted his available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d), 2254(b). Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 9/27/18. (GRE, )
|
|
Order mailed to William Hampton and Roy Rogers. Respondent's counsel has received this order by ECF notification. (GRE, )
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Davison Douglas on behalf of Willaim K Hampton (Douglas, Richard) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Roy Len Rogers. (Attachments: #1 Other)(SAC, ) |
| Filing 4 Letter from Roy L. Rogers with $5.00 filing fee included (receipt No. C1015948). (AML, ) |
| Converted from 1:18-mc-20 upon payment of filing fee. (AML, ) |
| Filing 3 Notice Regarding Requirement to Notify Court of Change of Address. (aws, ) Mailed to Roy Rogers. |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Deficiency (IFP) - The Court is in receipt of your complaint/petition. However, in order for this matter to proceed, you must either pay the required filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (aws, ) Mailed Notice and IFP form to Roy Rogers. |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Roy Len Rogers. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(aws, ) |
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 Tennessee Eastern 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: Rogers v. Hampton | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Roy Len Rogers | |
| 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: Willaim K Hampton | |
| Represented By: | Richard Davison Douglas |
| 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.
