Sparks v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

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

Sparks v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

Petitioner:	Robert Sparks
Respondent:	William Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Case Number:	3:2012cv00469
Filed:	August 27, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Dallas Office
County:	Polk
Presiding Judge:	David C Godbey
Nature of Suit:	Death Penalty
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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
March 27, 2018	Filing 61 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 38 amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and after considering the record in this case, the Court denies Spark s a certificate of appealability because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. If Sparks files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 3/27/2018) (zkc) Modified docket text on 3/27/2018 (zkc).
January 13, 2014	Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 18 MOTION TO STAY AND ABATE PROCEEDINGS: These proceedings are stayed and abated while Petitioner pursues his state habeas remedies in accordance with this memorandum opinion and order. During the pendency of this stay, this civil action will remain closed for statistical purposes. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 1/13/2014) (twd)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 27, 2018

Filing 61 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 38 amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and after considering the record in this case, the Court denies Spark s a certificate of appealability because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. If Sparks files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 3/27/2018) (zkc) Modified docket text on 3/27/2018 (zkc).

January 13, 2014

Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 18 MOTION TO STAY AND ABATE PROCEEDINGS: These proceedings are stayed and abated while Petitioner pursues his state habeas remedies in accordance with this memorandum opinion and order. During the pendency of this stay, this civil action will remain closed for statistical purposes. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 1/13/2014) (twd)

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: Sparks 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 ]
Petitioner: Robert Sparks
Represented By:	Seth Kretzer
Represented By:	Jonathan David Landers
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 ]
Respondent: William Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Represented By:	Ellen Stewart-Klein
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?