holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Meador v. C.S.P. Dental AnnexNo. 98-1452.
June 24, 1999.
C.A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 156 F. 3d 192.
holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Meador v. C.S.P. Dental Annexholding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Brownlee v. D.L. Porterholding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Brownlee v. Porterholding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Meador v. C.S.P. Dental Annexholding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Johnson v. Runnelsholding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56
Summary of this case from Jefferson v. Flohrrecognizing a limited exception to this general rule when the defendant is brought into Indiana under a Writ or other form of temporary custody, yet the State voluntarily relinquishes custody to another jurisdiction before bringing the defendant to trial
Summary of this case from Howard v. Statenoting handicaps faced by prisoners acting pro se in complying with procedural requirements
Summary of this case from Whalem/Hunt v. Earlynoting that for Criminal Rule 4(C) purposes, the days a defendant was incarcerated on charges which are later dismissed and re-filed count toward the State's time limit for bringing a defendant to trial
Summary of this case from James v. StateFull title:AMATEL ET AL. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jun 24, 1999
"The one year period begins with the date criminal charges are filed against the defendant or with the arrest…
Shaver v. Runnelsdivisions and has determined that no Klingele, infra, notice was provided to plaintiff either at the time…