King v. Crabtree et al
| Ronald King |
| Warden Crabtree and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The |
| 5:2023cv00697 |
| May 30, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| L Scott Coogler |
| Nicholas A Danella |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - For the reasons stated above, this report RECOMMENDS that the court DISMISS the petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. The petitioner may file specific written objections within 14 days. Objections to R&R due by 8/3/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas A Danella on 7/20/2023. (MEB2) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT PLEADING - Petitioner King's petition is deficient for the reason indicated below. King failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee of $5.00. Petitioner King must correct this deficiency within 30 days from the date of this notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas A Danella on 6/6/2023. (Attachments: #1 IFP Application) (MEB2) |
| Filing 2 CLERKS NOTICE re: case number as to Ronald King. (KSS) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ronald King.(KSS) |
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 Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
