Allen v. Burnett

Filing 2

ORDER directing the Clerk to change the style of this case to indicate Gary Wayne Burnett as the sole respondent; the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Wallace Allen and this Order on respondent by regular mail; the respondent shall respond to this habeas action within 21 days after service. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 9/19/11. (vjt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION WALLACE ALLEN PETITIONER 4:11CV00684 SWW/HDY GARY WAYNE BURNETT Sheriff, Prairie County, Arkansas RESPONDENT ORDER Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and paid the $5.00 filing fee. Although petitioner named Judge James Rhodes, along with Sheriff Gary Wayne Burnett, as the respondents, the correct respondent should be only Burnett, the person having custody of the petitioner. The Clerk is directed to change the style of the case to indicate Burnett as the sole respondent. The Clerk is further directed to serve a copy of the petition, and this order, on the respondent by regular mail.1 The respondent will file an answer, motion, or other response, to the petition, in conformity with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts, within 21 days after service of this petition, exclusive of the day of service. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19 day of September, 2011. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 Although he did not name deputy Graham as a respondent, petitioner has alleged facts to suggest he believes that Graham used excessive force against him. However, any excessive force claims must be made in a suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, which petitioner may file as a separate action, accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee, or an application for leave to proceed in foram pauperis.

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?