Bridges v. Doe
Xavier Bridges |
John Doe |
Pro Se Department |
3:2023cv00460 |
July 19, 2023 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
F Keith Ball |
Daniel P Jordan |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- That Petitioner on or before October 2, 2023, is directed to respond in writing to this Order to Show Cause and explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Order #2 of July 31, 2023. Show Cause Response due by 10/2/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 9/15/2023 (LAT) |
Filing 2 ORDER: on or before 8/30/2023, plaintiff shall either pay the required filing fee or file a completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, specifically the section entitled Certificate to Be Completed by Authorized Officer of prisoner accounts or file an affidavit specifically stating the name of the prison official contacted concerning the Certificate and why this information is not provided to this court. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 7/31/2023 (LAT) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Xavier Bridges. (Attachments: #1 Envelope, #2 Notice of Assignment)(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.