Boyd (PS) v. Doe
| Marvin T. Boyd, Jr. |
| John Doe and United |
| 1:2024cv02670 |
| September 26, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Richard T Gurley |
| 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 November 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiencies. If Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies within thirty days from the date of this Order, the action will be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without prejudice. Plaintiffs Motions (ECF Nos. 3. 4) are DENIED as unintelligible. by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 11/18/2024.(sphil, )
|
| Filing 7 LETTER by Plaintiff Marvin T. Boyd, Jr. (sphil, ) |
| Filing 6 LETTER by Plaintiff Marvin T. Boyd, Jr. (sphil, ) |
| Filing 5 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: #4 MOTION for Order to, #3 MOTION for Order to Addressed to Marvin T. Boyd, Jr.. (agryan) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Order by Plaintiff Marvin T. Boyd, Jr. (sphil, ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Order by Plaintiff Marvin T. Boyd, Jr. (sphil, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley. Text Only Entry (sadhi, ) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2254, filed by Boyd, Jr.(sadhi, ) |
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.
