Haley v. Brewer
| Russell Haley |
| Franklin Brewer |
| 22-60398 |
| July 19, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus (Prisoner Petition) |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MEMO IN SUPPORT of Motion for certificate of appealability [ # 9899109-2 ] filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 09/07/2022 04:28 PM] |
| IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 42.3.1, the appeal is subject to dismissal in 15 days for failure to comply with the initial written deadline. Brief in Support deadline updated to 09/15/2022 for Appellant Russell Haley [22-60398] (AGL) [Entered: 09/06/2022 11:43 AM] |
| BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley in support of Motion for certificate of appealability [ # 9899109-2 ] Brief in Support deadline satisfied. [9934673-1] [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 09/07/2022 04:29 PM] |
| MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley for prospective or other relief [9916004-2]. [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 08/15/2022 01:55 PM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No State Court Papers included? Yes. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [22-60398] (DDL) [Entered: 08/09/2022 09:09 AM] |
| LETTER filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley referencing Motion for certificate of appealability filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley in 22-60398 [ # 9899109-2 ]. [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 08/05/2022 02:27 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9898809-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. Motion due on 08/31/2022 for Appellant Russell Haley. Brief in Support due on 08/31/2022 for Appellant Russell Haley [22-60398] (WMJ) [Entered: 07/22/2022 02:05 PM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:22-CV-37. Electronic ROA due on 08/08/2022. [22-60398] (WMJ) [Entered: 07/22/2022 02:08 PM] |
| MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley for certificate of appealability [9899109-2]. Motion due deadline satisfied. [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 07/25/2022 07:46 AM] |
| EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT of Motion for certificate of appealability [ # 9899109-2 ] filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 07/25/2022 07:50 AM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis received from Appellant Mr. Russell Haley because the motion is unnecessary previsouly granted in dc [22-60398] (MRW) [Entered: 07/25/2022 07:52 AM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Haley [22-60398] (WMJ) [Entered: 07/19/2022 03:50 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: Haley v. Brewer | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: Russell Haley | |
| Represented By: | Russell Haley |
| 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 / appellee: Franklin Brewer | |
| Represented By: | Bridgette Grant |
| 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.
