U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 153— HABEAS CORPUS

28 U.S.C. § 2249

Certified copies of indictment, plea and judgment; duty of respondent

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

On application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of any person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States, the respondent shall promptly file with the court certified copies of the indictment, plea of petitioner and the judgment, or such of them as may be material to the questions raised, if the petitioner fails to attach them to his petition, and same shall be attached to the return to the writ, or to the answer to the order to show cause.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Master v. Baldi, 198 F.2d 113 (3rd Cir. 1952).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Ex Rel. Master v. Baldi, 198 F.2d 113 (3rd Cir. 1952). “28 U.S.C. § 2249 . The relator is,, of course, entitled to traverse the amended return, see Walker v.”
Tariq Belt v. President United States of Ame, 582 F. App'x 91 (3rd Cir. 2014). “He argues, for example, that the Magistrate Judge should have entered his proposed order to show cause and required appellees to present documents under 28 U.S.C. § 2249 before addressing the merits, that he has been aggrieved by various standing orders and docketing decisions,…”
Thomas Voelzke v. President United States of Ame, 582 F. App'x 89 (3rd Cir. 2014). “They argue, for example, that the Magistrate Judge should have entered their proposed orders to show cause and required appellees to present documents under 28 U.S.C. § 2249 before addressing the merits, that they have been aggrieved by various standing orders and docketing…”
Barnette v. Bunting (N.D. Ohio 2024). “Due process violations occurred: (1) when respondent failed to produce the documents in question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2249 ; and (2) when the court did not ask for an order to show cause, to the government related to Petitioner’s indictment.”
Barnette v. May (N.D. Ohio 2024). “Due process violations occurred: (1) when respondent failed to produce the documents in question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2249 ; and (2) when the court did not ask for an order to show cause, to the government related to Petitioner’s indictment.”
Barnette v. Bunting (N.D. Ohio 2024). “Due process violations occurred: (1) when respondent failed to produce the documents in question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2249 ; and (2) when the court did not ask for an order to show cause, to the government related to Petitioner’s indictment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.