John Fred Howard v. United States Attorney

Petitioner: John Fred Howard
Respondent: United States Attorney
Case Number: 2:2013cv02199
Filed: April 1, 2013
Court: Tennessee Western District Court
Office: Memphis Office
County: Shelby
Referring Judge: Charmiane G. Claxton
Presiding Judge: John T. Fowlkes
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 25, 2016 12 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Adopting DE 10 Report and Recommendations and Denying Petitioner's Motion to Proceed in IFP and for Appointment of Counsel signed by Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. on 8/25/16. (Fowlkes, J.)

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

Search for this case: John Fred Howard v. United States Attorney
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: John Fred Howard
Represented By: Robert Brooks
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: United States Attorney
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 [ 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?