Hawkins v. Nash
| Cheron Y. Nash |
| Anthony Hawkins |
| Pro Se Department |
| 3:2019cv00160 |
| March 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| F Keith Ball |
| Daniel P Jordan |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, on or before May 10, 2019, pro se Petitioner Anthony Hawkins shall either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a written response showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey an Order #3 . Show Cause Response due by 5/10/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 4/26/2019. [Copy mailed to petitioner] (LDR)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER *RESTRICTED* denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis as set out in the Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on March 21, 2019. (SP)
|
| Filing 2 *RESTRICTED* MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Anthony Hawkins. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(LAT) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Anthony Hawkins. (Attachments: #1 Envelope, #2 Notice of Assignment)(NEFs and notice of assignment mailed to Anthony Hawkins # 34875-001, FCC-Yazoo City, P.O. Box 5000, Yazoo City, MS 39194.(LAT) (Attachment 2 replaced on 3/4/2019) (LAT). |
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 Mississippi Southern 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.
