Hendrix, Larry v. Werlinger, Robert

Respondent: Robert Werlinger
Petitioner: Larry Hendrix
Case Number: 3:2013cv00214
Filed: March 28, 2013
Court: Wisconsin Western District Court
Office: Madison Office
County: Adams
Presiding Judge: Barbara B. Crabb
Referring Judge: Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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
May 28, 2013 11 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT entered dismissing the petition of Larry Hendrix for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner's claims do not fit within the savings clause found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). (PAO). (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: Hendrix, Larry v. Werlinger, Robert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Robert Werlinger
Represented By: Leslie K. Herje
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: Larry Hendrix
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.