Ohlinger, John v. Meisner, Michael

Petitioner: John David Ohlinger
Respondent: J.B. Van Hollen
Case Number: 3:2011cv00799
Filed: November 30, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Office: Madison Office
County: Columbia
Presiding Judge: William M. Conley
Presiding Judge: Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 129 ORDER denying petitioner John David Ohlinger's 127 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 2/7/2018. (jef),(ps)
April 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 110 JUDGMENT entered denying 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissing this case. Signed by Peter A. Oppeneer, Clerk of Court on 4/6/2017. (jef),(ps)
April 15, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER denying 91 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/15/2015. (jef),(ps)
March 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER denying 89 Motion to access release account funds to pay for copies, alternatively to waive the cost of copies and for an additional 30 days to file his supplemental brief. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/5/2015. (elc),(ps)
January 15, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER terminating 80 Motion to Dismiss as withdrawn by the petitioner; denying 85 amended motion for a stay to return to state court; granting in part and denying in part 87 Motion to Stay. Ohlinger may have ninety (90) days from the date of th is order in which to file any additional briefing in support of his supplemental petition. Any additional brief in support filed by Ohlinger must be limited to the claims presented in his supplemental petition (dkt. # 11 ). No further extensions will be granted except upon substantial good cause shown. Once Ohlinger files his supplemental brief in response to this order, or the time to do so expires, respondent will have thirty (30) days in which to file a brief in opposition to the supplemental petition. Once the respondent files his brief in opposition, Ohlinger will have twenty days (20) to file a reply if he wishes to do so. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/15/2015. (jef),(ps)
November 13, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER granting petitioner's 5 Motion to Reinstate. Petitioner's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of his claims is also GRANTED with the following additional instruction: Any supplemental brief submitted must list all of petitioner's proposed grounds for relief in this case. Petitioner shall file that supplemental brief no later than December 23, 2013. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/13/2013. (jef),(ps)

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

Search for this case: Ohlinger, John v. Meisner, Michael
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: John David Ohlinger
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 ]
Respondent: J.B. Van Hollen
Represented By: Gregory M. Weber
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?