Harris v. Rogers
| Brandon Harris |
| Sammy Rogers and Warden Douglas Williams |
| 2:2021cv02230 |
| April 12, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Annie T Christoff |
| Sheryl H Lipman |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint by Douglas Williams.(Bolduc, Nicholas) |
| Filing 6 INDEX OF STATE COURT RECORD by Douglas Williams. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Technical Record on Petitioner's Trial Proceedings in Shelby County)(Bolduc, Nicholas) |
Filing 5
ORDER MODIFYING THE DOCKET AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE RECORD AND TO RESPOND. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 4/30/21. (Lipman, Sheryl)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas Scott Bolduc on behalf of Sammy Rogers (Bolduc, Nicholas) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Pro Se Prisoner track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (csf) |
| Filing 3 Case initiation fee: PAID $ 5.00, receipt number M4676048682 (csf) |
| Filing 1 PRO SE Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Brandon Harris against Sammy Rogers. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, #2 Envelope, #3 Judicial Cards)(csf) |
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 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.
