Derrick StevensIn re: Derrick Stevens
Petitioner: In re: DERRICK STEVENS
Respondent: THOMAS S. MCGINLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Case Number: 26-2497
Filed: June 23, 2026
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 23, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 23, 2026 Filing 2 NONCOMPLIANCE Order sent to Petitioner Derrick Stevens requesting compliance for 2244[b] Motion Received. On June 15, 2026, this Court received Petitioners motion under 28 U.S.C. 2244 for an Order Authorizing the District Court to Consider a Second or Successive Application for Relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, which was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 22.5(h), if the district court enters an order transferring a petition, it shall promptly forward the record to this Court. This record includes copies of the proposed new 2254 application, copies of all prior habeas applications, any magistrate judges report(s) regarding prior habeas action(s), and the district court opinions and/or order(s) regarding prior habeas action(s). An additional document, however, is required for the Court to consider the motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner submit the following document within 21 days of the date of this order: a memorandum, not exceeding 20 pages, which clearly states how the standards of 2244(b) are satisfied. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.5(i). Because the proper document was not included with the 2244 application, the application is deemed lodged with the Court. Compliance due within 21 days. (SB) [Entered: 06/23/2026 02:56 PM]
June 23, 2026 Filing 1 Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b) filed. Notice filed by Petitioner Derrick Stevens. Placed in Prison Mail on 05/29/2026. Transferred from Eastern District. Received in the Court of Appeals on 06/15/2026. (SB) [Entered: 06/23/2026 02:49 PM]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Derrick StevensIn re: Derrick Stevens
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: In re: DERRICK STEVENS
Represented By: Derrick Stevens
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: THOMAS S. MCGINLEY
Represented By: District Attorney Philadelphia
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA
Represented By: District Attorney Philadelphia
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Represented By: District Attorney Philadelphia
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 [ 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?