Hughes v. Martin
| Charles Hughes |
| Judge James G. Martin |
| 3:2022cv00332 |
| May 9, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Eli J Richardson |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TN State Bar status verified as active for Joseph Paul Ahillen admitted to this court. (kc)
|
|
Filing 8
NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Paul Ahillen on behalf of James G. Martin (Ahillen, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 7
SUMMONS returned executed by Charles Hughes. James G. Martin served on 5/18/2022. (kc)
|
|
Filing 6
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT re: #5 Memorandum Opinion of the Court, Order Dismissing Case. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (kc)
|
|
Filing 5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT: As best the Court can discern, Petitioner challenges the authority of Williamson County Circuit Court Judge James G. Martin to enter a judgment against Petitioner. Although Petitioner lists "Writ of Mandamus" and "Writ of Prohibition" in the title of his petition, he appears to seek relief solely via a writ of quo warranto (which also appears in the title of his petition). Having determined that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to issue any of the three writs sought by Petitioner, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the final Order denying all relief in this case. The Clerk SHALL enter judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b). Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 5/19/2022. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc)
|
|
Filing 4
Summons issued as to James G. Martin. (Service packet returned to pro se party by regular mail.) (kc)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (kc)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 217 to parties re obligation of counsel to keep Court apprised of current contact information. (kc)
|
|
Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form included). (kc)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT - Writ of Quo Warranto, Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition against James G. Martin (Filing fee $402, Receipt number 34675065837), filed by Charles Huges. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits, #2 Attachment - Filing Fee Receipt)(kc) Modified on 5/10/2022 (kc).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Hughes v. Martin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Charles Hughes | |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent: Judge James G. Martin | |
| Represented By: | Joseph Paul Ahillen |
| 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.
