Martinez De Los Santos v. Wolfe
| Eduardo Martinez De Los Santos |
| R. M. Wolfe |
| 5:2022cv00261 |
| November 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia |
| John Preston Bailey |
| James P Mazzone |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 RETURN RECEIPT as to #10 Roseboro Order. SERVICE ACCEPTED on 12/5/2022. (ag) |
Filing 10
ROSEBORO ORDER TO PETITIONER: re #8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. M. Wolfe. You have 21 days from the date of this order to file any material in opposition to the motion that the respondent filed. If you fail to respond adequately, the court may grant the respondent's motion, which may end your case. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone on 12/1/2022. (ag)(pro se PET cm rrr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/1/2022: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (ag).
|
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM by R. M. Wolfe re #8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . (Attachments: #1 Spearen Declaration and Attachments)(Palmer, Jordan) |
| Filing 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by R. M. Wolfe. (Palmer, Jordan) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Jordan Vincent Palmer on behalf of R. M. Wolfe (Palmer, Jordan) |
| Filing 6 RETURN RECEIPT as to #3 Notice of General Guidelines for Appearing Pro se in Federal Court, #2 Notice of Deficient Pleading. SERVICE ACCEPTED on 11/9/2022. (ag) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. Attorney Christopher James Prezioso for R. M. Wolfe added. The Warden shall have twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone on 11/9/2022. (ag)(pro se PET cm rrr; AUSA Prezioso US Mail and cm/ecf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/9/2022: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (ag).
|
| Filing 4 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number WVNC003531. (ag) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR APPEARING PRO SE IN FEDERAL COURT. (ag)(pro se PET cm rrr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/3/2022: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (ag). |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT PLEADING. (Attachments: #1 2241 forms, IFP & PTAR)(ag)(pro se PET cm rrr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/3/2022: #2 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (ag). |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus against R. M. Wolfe, filed by Eduardo Martinez De Los Santos. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(ag) |
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.
- 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: Martinez De Los Santos v. Wolfe | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Eduardo Martinez De Los Santos | |
| 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: R. M. Wolfe | |
| Represented By: | Jordan Vincent Palmer |
| Represented By: | Christopher James Prezioso |
| 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.
