Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Ramos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


December 29, 2009

EDWARD LAVON JACKSON, PETITIONER,
v.
ANTONIO RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm U.S. District Judge

ORDER

The matter presently before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2254 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court's preliminary review indicates that the Petition could have merit and therefore orders Respondents to show cause within twenty-one (21) days after service of this Order why said writ should not be granted. The Answer shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

After Respondents have filed their response, Petitioner is ordered to file any traverse or reply to the response within twenty-one (21) days after service of said response on him. The Court admonishes Petitioner that a failure to reply to the response pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2248 will cause the Court to take the allegations in the response to the Petition as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall serve upon Respondents or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to Respondents or their counsel. Any paper received by this Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner immediately notify the Court of any change in his mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in mailing address will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice.

Entered this 29th day of December, 2009.

20091229

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.