Braziel v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

Justia Dockets & Filings Fifth Circuit Texas Northern District Braziel v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

Braziel v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

Plaintiff:	Alvin Avon Braziel, Jr
Defendant:	Nathaniel Quarterman
Case Number:	3:2009cv01591
Filed:	August 17, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Dallas Office
County:	Dallas
Presiding Judge:	Barbara M. G. Lynn
Presiding Judge:	Paul D Stickney
Nature of Suit:	Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 28, 2015	Filing 87 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RELIEF 83 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 5/28/2015) (aaa)
April 15, 2014	Filing 48 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Respondent's motion to cancel the evidentiary hearing and alternative motion to limit the scope of evidentiary development (ECF No. 42 ) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows. Respondent's request t hat the Court hold the evidentiary hearing is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) (Mot. at 2-13) is DENIED without prejudice to its reconsideration when the Court decides whether evidence presented at the hearing may be considered in deciding t he merits of a claim that is shown to come within an exception to procedural bar. Respondent's alternative request to exclude the live testimony of witnesses other than trial counsel and state habeas counsel (Mot. at 13) is GRANTED. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 4/15/2014) (ctf)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 28, 2015

Filing 87 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RELIEF 83 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 5/28/2015) (aaa)

April 15, 2014

Filing 48 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Respondent's motion to cancel the evidentiary hearing and alternative motion to limit the scope of evidentiary development (ECF No. 42 ) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows. Respondent's request t hat the Court hold the evidentiary hearing is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) (Mot. at 2-13) is DENIED without prejudice to its reconsideration when the Court decides whether evidence presented at the hearing may be considered in deciding t he merits of a claim that is shown to come within an exception to procedural bar. Respondent's alternative request to exclude the live testimony of witnesses other than trial counsel and state habeas counsel (Mot. at 13) is GRANTED. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 4/15/2014) (ctf)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Braziel v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alvin Avon Braziel, Jr
Represented By:	Douglas H Parks
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Nathaniel Quarterman
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?