Coffelt v. Sexton et al
| Billy Coffelt |
| David Sexton and Tennessee, State of |
| 3:2011cv00136 |
| February 15, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
21
ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum contemporaneously entered, the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief can be granted. Therefore, his habeas corpus petition 2 is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 5/26/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER: The respondent shall file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the petition within 30 days of the date of entry of this order on the docket. The petitioner, within 14 days from the date of entry of this order, shall file a statement acknow ledging whether he has filed any previous petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a federal writ. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order by certified mail on the respondent and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 2/25/11. (xc:Pro se party, AG of TN & Respondent by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
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 Middle 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.
