Gillman v. Hollingsworth
ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 21 for order and extension of time is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 9/13/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Steven A. Gillman by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STEVEN A. GILLMAN,
WARDEN C. MAYE,
O R D E R
This petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 was dismissed as moot by Order entered on
August 16, 2012.
After the Order of Dismissal and Judgment were
entered, the clerk received and docketed
a Motion for Order
apparently submitted by petitioner before he received notice of
Respondent has filed a Response to this motion.
The court denies petitioner’s motion as moot.1
The request for
court action included by respondent in his response is not in
proper motion form, but if it were it would likewise be denied
Motion for Order and Extension of Time (Doc. 21) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Petitioner suggests in his motion that “if the court rules in his
favor” he will file a motion for costs. No such motion is before the court
and, in any event, petitioner refers to no authority that would entitle him
to receive costs in a pro se habeas corpus action.
This 13th day of September, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States District Judge
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?