Cardenas v. Coakley

Cardenas v. Coakley

Petitioner:	Lues Asprella Cardenas
Respondent:	Joe Coakley
Case Number:	1:2018cv00131
Filed:	June 11, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office:	Clarksburg Office
County:	Preston
Presiding Judge:	Michael John Aloi
Presiding Judge:	Irene M. Keeley
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
November 27, 2019	Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 20 ) AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT. The petition is DENIED and DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 11/27/2019. (Copy to PS Petitioner by cert. mail). (dk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/27/2019: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (dk).
August 20, 2018	Filing 7 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BUT DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PAY THE $5.00 FILING FEE: Although the Court finds that the petitioner is a pauper and GRANTS his 2 IFP motion, because the petitioner receives sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee, he will be required to pay that fee within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi on 8/20/2018. (Copy to PS Petitioner via CM, RRR.)(wrr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/20/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (wrr).

Date Filed

Document Text

November 27, 2019

Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 20 ) AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT. The petition is DENIED and DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 11/27/2019. (Copy to PS Petitioner by cert. mail). (dk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/27/2019: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (dk).

August 20, 2018

Filing 7 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BUT DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PAY THE $5.00 FILING FEE: Although the Court finds that the petitioner is a pauper and GRANTS his 2 IFP motion, because the petitioner receives sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee, he will be required to pay that fee within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi on 8/20/2018. (Copy to PS Petitioner via CM, RRR.)(wrr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/20/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (wrr).

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 West Virginia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cardenas v. Coakley
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Lues Asprella Cardenas
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: Joe Coakley
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?