legal-news

Williams v. Livingston et al

26-cv-00538
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Williams v. Livingston et al, docket 26-cv-00538, involves a speedy trial excludable time designation — a procedural marker indicating that a period of delay has been formally excluded from the Speedy Trial Act clock. These exclusions typically arise from ongoing plea negotiations, defense motions, or competency proceedings, and courts must document them to preserve compliance with statutory deadlines. The court and full factual record are not available from the current docket entry. The case appears to be in an early or mid-stage criminal or civil rights posture, with the excludable time notation suggesting active case management rather than dormancy.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • • Speedy Trial Act compliance and excludable time calculation
  • • Basis for delay exclusion (motion, negotiation, or other grounds)
  • • Identity and claims of plaintiff Williams against defendants Livingston et al
  • • Court's case management posture
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
info
Other April 20, 2026

1:25-cr-00052-1 USA v. WILLIAMS

A speedy trial exclusion clock started in USA v. Williams, No. 1:25-cr-00052. That means the government has formally designated a period of time that will not count against the constitutional and statutory deadline to bring Williams to trial. Exclusions are common but consequential — they extend the window the prosecution has to prepare, and they require a valid legal basis under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

description View filing open_in_new
info
Other April 20, 2026

1:26-cv-00538 Williams v. Livingston et al

The court granted Williams leave to file a document in his case against Livingston and other defendants. Leave-to-file orders typically mean the court had to approve the filing before it could enter the record — common when a party is incarcerated, subject to a filing injunction, or seeking to file an oversized or otherwise restricted document.

description View filing open_in_new
Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

2 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

2 outlets · 2 articles

Timeline events

2 records on file

Last updated

2 hours, 7 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.