Flint v. Champagne

Petitioner: Antwon Flint
Respondent: Quala Champagne
Case Number: 1:2019cv00411
Filed: March 20, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Presiding Judge: William C Griesbach
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 21, 2019 Filing 2 LETTER from the clerk to the petitioner re Consent/Refusal to Magistrate Judge Jones and requesting that the consent/refusal form along with the request to proceed without prepaying and the trust account statement all be filed within 21 days. Mailed to petitioner.(cms)
March 20, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Antwon Flint. (cms)

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 Wisconsin Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Flint v. Champagne
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Quala Champagne
Represented By: Wisconsin Dept of Justice - Habeas
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Antwon Flint
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 [ 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?