Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

16-722 - WILKINS v. KNIGHT

Download Files


Document in Context
16-722 - WILKINS v. KNIGHT
April 5, 2016
PDF | More
ENTRY Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - This matter is before the Court for screening of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Wallace Wilkins on March 31, 2016. "Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face." McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). For the reasons stated below, this is an appropriate case for summary dismissal because the petition of Wallace Wilkins shows on its face that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/5/2016.(JLS)
June 1, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Denying Motion for Reconsideration - Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment [Dkt 6], is denied. (See order). Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/1/2016. (JLS)
August 29, 2016
PDF | More
in this action, and thisaction remains closed. **SEE ORDER** Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/29/2016. (JLS) Order Directing Treatment ofMotion for 60(b) as New Civil Action - The clerk shall process the Rule 60(b) motion [dkt 8] as a new civil action in the Indianapolis Division. The motion shall be the initial pleading in the newly opened action and shall be re-docketed there as the petition for writ of habeas corpus. A copy of this Entry shall likewise be docketed in the new action. The new action shall have a NOS of 530 and a cause of action of 28:2254(a). In the new action, Wallace Wilkins shall be the petitioner and the Superintendent of the Correctional Industrial Facility shall be the respondent. The assignment of judicial officers in the newly-opened action shall be by random draw. The motion for 60(b) [dkt 8] is denied insofar as filed