Carr v. Elder et al
| Heshimo Yaphet Carr |
| Bill Elder and Cy Gillespie |
| 1:2022cv02263 |
| August 31, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Lewis T Babcock |
| Gordon P Gallagher |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 st - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing by Petitioner Heshimo Yaphet Carr. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope)(sdunb, ) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Intervention by Petitioner Heshimo Yaphet Carr. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope)(sdunb, ) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Discovery by Petitioner Heshimo Yaphet Carr. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope)(sdunb, ) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Petitioner Heshimo Yaphet Carr. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope)(sdunb, ) |
| Filing 9 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. This Magistrate Judge respectfully RECOMMENDS that the claims asserted in the #1 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging the legality of Applicant's pre-trial detention be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); alternatively, the claims should be dismissed for Applicant's failure to exhaust available state court remedies. This Magistrate Judge further respectfully RECOMMENDS that the claims challenging the conditions of Applicant's confinement at the detention facility be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of statutory jurisdiction. By Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 10/17/2022. (sdunb, ) |
Filing 8
ORDER OF REFERENCE to United States Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/14/2022. All future pleadings should be designated 22-cv-02263-LTB-GPG. (sdunb, ) Modified on 10/17/2022 to correct text (sdunb, ).
|
|
Filing 7
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock. The undersigned will remain as the assigned magistrate judge. By Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 10/11/2022. (sdunb, )
|
| Filing 6 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re #5 by Petitioner Heshimo Yaphet Carr. (sdunb, ) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. It is ORDERED that Mr. Carr show cause, in writing, within thirty (30) days, why this habeas action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Younger abstention, or for failure to exhaust available state court remedies. If Mr. Carr fails to show cause within the time allowed, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. By Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 09/07/2022. (athom, )
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER Granting #3 Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 9/6/2022.(sphil, )
|
| Filing 3 Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action by Petitioner Heshimo Yaphet Carr. (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher. Text Only Entry. (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241, filed by Heshimo Yaphet Carr.(jtorr, ) |
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 Colorado 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.
