Logan v. Haslam et al
| Courtney R. Logan |
| Bill Haslam, Robert Cooper, Jr., John Zimmerman, Seth Norman, Mark Chestnut, Norris Tarkington and David M. Hopkins |
| 3:2015cv00787 |
| July 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| John T. Nixon |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| 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
18
ORDER: Petitioner Courtney Logan, proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at the Wilkinson County Correction Facility in Woodville, Mississippi. Presently pending before the court are Logan's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket No. 1) and motion for order to show cause (Docket No. 6). Also pending is motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies by the respondents. (Docket No. 15). For the reasons explained more fully in the memor andum entered contemporaneously herewith, the respondents' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED, and this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile once the petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. The petitioner's motion for order to show cause (Docket No. 6) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 9/22/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(af)
|
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.
