Duncan v. Entzel
Petitioner: Cody Duncan
Respondent: Frederick Entzel
Case Number: 1:2018cv00172
Filed: September 4, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Presiding Judge: Michael John Aloi
Referring Judge: Irene M Keeley
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 17, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 17, 2018 Filing 11 Election by Petitioner to Proceed Under 28 USC 2255 or to Proceed as Filed re #5 Notification filed by Cody Duncan. (Attachments: #1 Cover letter, #2 Envelope)(mh)
September 17, 2018 Filing 10 RETURN RECEIPT as to #8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. SERVICE ACCEPTED on 9/14/2018. (wrr)
September 12, 2018 Filing 9 RETURN RECEIPT as to #5 Order. SERVICE ACCEPTED on 9/10/18. (mh)
September 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. The Court grants the Petitioner's #6 Motion to Dismiss and Denies as moot the Petitioner's #2 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. This action is dismissed without prejudice and stricken from the Court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 9/11/18. (Copy to PS Petitioner via cert. mail)(mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/12/2018: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).
September 10, 2018 Filing 7 RETURN RECEIPT as to #4 Notice of Deficient Pleading, #3 Notice of General Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se in Federal Court. SERVICE ACCEPTED on 9/7/2018. (wrr)
September 10, 2018 Filing 6 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal by Cody Duncan. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(wrr)
September 5, 2018 Filing 5 NOTIFICATION TO PETITIONER OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO PROCEED UNDER 28 USC 2255 OR TO PROCEED AS FILED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi on 9/5/18. (Attachments: #1 Election Form)(mh) (Copy to PS Petitioner via cert. mail) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/5/2018: #2 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).
September 4, 2018 Filing 4 NOTICE of Deficient Pleading. (Attachments: #1 First page of IFP Form, #2 First page of PTAR) (To PS Petitioner via cert. mail)(mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/4/2018: #3 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).
September 4, 2018 Filing 3 NOTICE of General Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se in Federal Court (To PS Petitioner via cert. mail) (mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/4/2018: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).
September 4, 2018 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Exceed the Five Page Limitation by Cody Duncan. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(mh)
September 4, 2018 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2241 against Frederick Entzel, filed by Cody Duncan. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Declaration of Cody Duncan, #3 Envelope)(mh)

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: Duncan v. Entzel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Frederick Entzel
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: Cody Duncan
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?