Whiteside v. Ryan et al
Emanuel Charles Whiteside |
Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Charles L Ryan |
2:2018cv03370 |
October 18, 2018 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
James F Metcalf (PS) |
Susan R Bolton |
Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 2, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 ORDER: Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee of file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. If Petitioner fails to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Petitioner and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel #2 is denied. Signed by Senior Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/11/2018. (REK) |
Filing 4 MOTION for Status re: #2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Emanuel Charles Whiteside. (1 page) (EJA) |
Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT: (EJA) |
Filing 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Emanuel Charles Whiteside. (8 pages) (EJA) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Emanuel Charles Whiteside. (99 pages) (Attachments: #1 part 2, #2 part 3, #3 envelope)(EJA) |
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 Arizona 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.