Hudson v. Byrd
Petitioner: Mateem Hudson
Respondent: Raymond Byrd
Case Number: 3:2020cv00994
Filed: November 16, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Presiding Judge: Jeffery S Frensley
Referring Judge: Aleta A Trauger
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 4, 2020 NOTICE of Case transferred from Tennessee Middle has been opened in Western District of Tennessee as case 2:20-cv-02878, filed 12/04/2020. (bs)
December 4, 2020 Case transferred to USDC/WDTN. (vh)
December 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER: Mateem Hudson filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and has now filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs ("IFP application"). (Doc. Nos. #1 , #5 .) But upon review of the file, it is apparent that this matter should be transferred to another court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The court observes that it has not ruled on the petitioner's pending IFP application or screened his petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 12/4/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(vh)
December 1, 2020 Filing 5 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Mateem Hudson. (dt)
November 30, 2020 TN State Bar status verified as active for Richard Davison Douglas admitted to this court. (dt)
November 25, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Davison Douglas on behalf of Raymond Byrd (Douglas, Richard)
November 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER: The Clerk is DIRECTED to send the petitioner a blank short-form Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs and a copy of Administrative Order 93. Within 30 days from the date of entry of this order on the docket, the petitioner MUST submit to the court either the $5.00 filing fee or the completed application. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/24/2020. (xc: Pro se party w/ Adm. Order No. 93 and IFP by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
November 17, 2020 Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form and Notice of Consent form included.) (dt)
November 17, 2020 Filing 2 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (dt)
November 16, 2020 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Mateem Hudson.(dt)

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hudson v. Byrd
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Raymond Byrd
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 ]
Petitioner: Mateem Hudson
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?