Cloud v. Rokosky
Petitioner: Fred Cloud
Respondent: E. Rokosky
Case Number: 1:2022cv00502
Filed: November 2, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Presiding Judge: David A Faber
Referring Judge: Dwane L Tinsley
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 15, 2022 Filing 10 LETTER to Judge Tinsley, from Fred Cloud dated 12/12/2022, re: receipt of #5 Order and Notice and reply deadline of 1/30/2023. (mk) (Modified on 12/15/2022 to replace image) (mk).
December 15, 2022 NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: #10 Letter. ERROR: Page inadvertently omitted. CORRECTION: Image replaced. (mk)
December 12, 2022 Filing 9 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by E. Rokosky (Attachment: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 continuing, #3 continuing, #4 continuing)(Arthur, Christopher)
November 21, 2022 Filing 8 RETURN RECEIPT CARD received from United States Attorney re: #5 Order and Notice; signed by Caylee Slack on 11/18/2022. (arb)
November 21, 2022 Filing 7 RETURN RECEIPT CARD received from E. Rokosky, Warden re: #5 Order and Notice; signed by T. Farrow on 11/18/2022. (arb)
November 16, 2022 Filing 6 LETTER to Court from Fred Cloud re: filing fee. (mk)
November 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER AND NOTICE directing the Respondent, by 12/30/2022, to file an Answer to the allegations contained in the #1 Petition by Fred Cloud for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) showing cause, if any, why the writ of habeas corpus sought should not be granted. Petitioner may file a Reply to Respondent's Answer by 1/30/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on 11/15/2022. (Attachments: #1 E. Rokosky, Warden Certified Mail Receipt, #2 U. S. Attorney Certified Mail Receipt) (cc: Petitioner; Respondent and USA w/2241 Petition) (arb)
November 14, 2022 Filing 4 Filing Fee: $5.00, Receipt No. 1000086. (arb)
November 3, 2022 Filing 3 STANDING ORDER IN RE: ASSIGNMENT AND REFERRAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS AND MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGES ENTERED JANUARY 4, 2016. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for Findings of Fact and Recommendations for disposition. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (klc)
November 2, 2022 CASE assigned to Senior Judge David A. Faber. (klc)
November 2, 2022 Filing 2 NOTICE to Petitioner of Failure to Remit Filing Fee (arb)
November 2, 2022 Filing 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Fred Cloud against E. Rokosky, Warden pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241. (Attachments: #1 Attachment A, #2 Attachment B, #3 Attachment C, #4 Attachment D, #5 Attachment E, #6 Attachment F, #7 Attacment G, #8 Attachment H) (arb)

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

Search for this case: Cloud v. Rokosky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Fred Cloud
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: E. Rokosky
Represented By: Christopher R. Arthur
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?