From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peoples v. Lindamood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Nov 27, 2012
No. 3:12-1179 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012)

Opinion

No. 3:12-1179

11-27-2012

MICHAEL DESHAY PEOPLES. JR. Petitioner, v. CHERRY LINDAMOOD, WARDEN Respondent.


Judge Trauger


ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner petition (Docket Entry No.1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition and finds that the petitioner has stated a colorable claim for relief. Rule 4, Rules --- § 2254 Cases.

Accordingly, the respondent shall file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the petition in conformance with Rule 5, Rules --- § 2254 Cases, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order on the docket. The response shall state whether this case is a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). The respondent shall also address the question of whether the petition has been timely filed.

The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order by mail on the respondent and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Rule 4, Rules --- § 2254 Cases.

It is so ORDERED.

____________

Aleta A. Trauger

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Peoples v. Lindamood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Nov 27, 2012
No. 3:12-1179 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Peoples v. Lindamood

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL DESHAY PEOPLES. JR. Petitioner, v. CHERRY LINDAMOOD, WARDEN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 27, 2012

Citations

No. 3:12-1179 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012)