Murdock v. Colson
| Marshall H. Murdock |
| Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Board of Paroles, State of Tennessee and Roland Colson |
| 3:2011cv01136 |
| November 30, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| William J. Haynes |
| 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
49
ORDER: Petitioner Marshall Murdock has filed a habeas petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed herewith, the Court finds that the petition (ECF No. 1) is a successive petition un der 28 U.S.C. § 2244 which this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider in the absence of an order from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing its filing. Accordingly, the respondent's Motion to Transfer Second or Successive Applicatio n for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TRANSFER this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir. 1997).The petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) is DENIED as MOOT. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/22/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail;6CCA via email notification)(tmw)
|
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.
