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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-020 - Bewley v. Britten et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-020 - Bewley v. Britten et al
January 30, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 2) is granted. The next step in this case is for the court to conduct a preliminary review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The court will conduct this review in its normal course of business. Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 4) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
March 21, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that upon initial review of the habeas corpus petition (Filing No. 1), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as they are set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court. By May 5, 2017, Respondents must file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: May 5, 2017: deadline for Respondents to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: June 4, 2017: check for Respondents answer and separate brief. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LAC)
July 31, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 11) is granted. Petitioner's habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. ยง 2244(d). The court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. A separate judgment will be entered. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)