Dellinger v. Bell
Plaintiff: James Dellinger
Defendant: Ricky Bell
Case Number: 3:2009cv00404
Filed: September 11, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Knoxville Office
County: Sevier
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge: C Clifford Shirley
Presiding Judge: Thomas A Varlan
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 1, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 204 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Petitioner's petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in case numbers 3:09-CV-104 95 and 3:09-CV-404 104 are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Petitioners outstanding motion to amend in case number 3:09-CV-404 197 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE these cases, 3:09-CV-104 and 3:09-CV-404. Signed by District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 3/1/23. (ADA)
September 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 202 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Petitioner's motion 199 , however, is DENIED to the extent that he seeks a stay of his non-capital habeas corpus proceeding filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner SHALL continue to file st atus reports with the Court every ninety (90) days, in which he apprises it of the progress of his state-court proceedings, as the Court previously ordered [See Case No.: 3:09-CV-104, Doc. 230]. Petitioner SHALL notify the Court of the outcome of his petition that is pending in the Circuit Court for Blount County within seven (7) days of the trial court's decision. Signed by District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 9/20/22. (ADA)
February 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 184 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Petitioner's Motion for Discovery 173 is DENIED for lack of good cause under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner's Motion for Extension 173 is also DENIED for lack o f good cause. Pursuant to the Court's March 7, 2019 and February 5, 2020 Orders, Petitioner was to notify the Court within sixty days after the close of discoveryupon receipt of the NC SBI fileif he intended to amend his Amended Petition. [Do cs. 146 at 1 & 165 at 12]. Because sixty days have passed since the close of discovery, Petitioner SHALL notify the Court within fourteen days of this Orders entry as to whether Petitioner seeks to amend his Amended Petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin on 2/9/21. (ADA)
March 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 122 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 113 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 3/30/18. (JBR)
November 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 94 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court agrees with the magistrate judge and the Respondent's objections [Doc. 89 ] are OVERRULED. The Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 83 ]. Petitioner's motion seeking equitable tolling of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations [Doc. 29 ] is hereby GRANTED. This case is REFERRED to the Honorable C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), for determination of filing deadlines. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 11/30/15. (JBR)
June 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER referring this matter to Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., for an evidentiary hearing on the issues set forth herein. Additionally, the Court DENIES relief on Petitioner's claim that his mental shortcomings const itute an extraordinary circumstance entitling him to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitation. The Court will enter a Judgment Order and include a ruling on a Certificate of Appealability after the resolution of the issues to be considered in the evidentiary hearing. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on June 12, 2013. (AYB)
March 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER that the motions for discovery 16 and 19 will be DENIED as premature at this stage of the litigation, without prejudice, to the Petitioner's right to renewal of the discovery requests at a later stage. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on 3/31/11. (ABF)
June 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER denying 2 petitioner's Motion for a status conference; denying as moot 5 petitioner's Motion to abate his writ of habeas corpus proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Holland v. Flor ida, U.S. No. 09-5327; to support his tolling argument, petitioner's counsel SHALL file a brief which must include legal analysis and case law, and attach any affidavits or materials they deem necessary to resolve this issue. Petitioner SHALL fi le his brief within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. And, respondent SHALL file his response within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of petitioner's brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on June 21, 2010. (AYB)
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 this case: Dellinger v. Bell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Dellinger
Represented By: Francis L Lloyd, Jr
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 ]
Defendant: Ricky Bell
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?