BRICENO v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al
| PEGGY COROMOTO BRICENO |
| PAUL DENOFRIO and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. |
| 1:2021cv00635 |
| March 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| James E Boasberg |
| Prisoner Petition: General (Habeas Corpus) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Signed by Nicole Bell-Norwood, Courtroom Deputy on 3/11/2021. (nbn) |
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff has filed this pro se suit against Bank of America, which she nonetheless labels as an action for habeas corpus. Although the Complaint is very difficult to follow, her claim seems to relate to a dispute with the Bank over money. This does not fall within the parameters of habeas, and the Court has no indication that it otherwise has subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition, if Plaintiff is proceeding outside of habeas, she must either pay the full civil filing fee or seek leave to file in forma pauperis. The Court, accordingly, ORDERS that the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/11/2021. (lcjeb1)
|
| Filing fee received: $ 5.00, receipt number: 4616105211. (ztth) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by PEGGY COROMOTO BRICENO. (Attachment: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (ztth) |
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 District Of Columbia 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.
