Branch #278745 v. Shinn et al
| Adam Scott Branch |
| David Shinn and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 2:2022cv01596 |
| September 20, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| James F Metcalf (PS) |
| Michael T Liburdi |
| Prisoner: 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 October 12, 2022. 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 or 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. See document for further details. Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 10/12/2022. (REK)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE: This case is subject to electronic filing. Please review the attached documents. (WLP) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (WLP) |
| Filing 2 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Adam Scott Branch. (2 pages) (WLP) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Adam Scott Branch. (15 pages) (WLP) |
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.
