Kumar v. Gillis
| Manoj Kumar |
| Shawn R. Gillis |
| Pro Se Department |
| 5:2019cv00116 |
| November 7, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| David C Bramlette |
| Michael T Parker |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 30, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, on or before January 13, 2020, Petitioner shall file a written response showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with a Court Order #3 . Show Cause Response due by 1/13/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on 12/30/2019. [Copy of Order mailed to Petitioner] (CS)
|
| Filing 4 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to #3 Order. Mail sent to Manoj Kumar (PKM) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER, on or before December 10, 2019, Petitioner shall file a written response consistent with this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on 11/19/2019. [Copy mailed to petitioner] (LDR)
|
| Filing 2 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to Notice of Assignment and Receipt re: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Mail sent to Manoj Kumar. (PKM) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 34643057139.), filed by Manoj Kumar. (Attachments: #1 Envelope, #2 Notice of Assignment)(cwl) |
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.
