Gomez v. Royce
| Peter Gomez |
| Mark Royce |
| 9:2019cv01571 |
| December 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Thomas J McAvoy |
| 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 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Set Deadlines: Notice of Compliance Deadline 2/27/2020; Case Review Deadline 3/27/2020. (rep)
|
|
Filing 6
DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order. The Clerk is directed to provide petitioner with a blank 2254 habeas petition for this purpose. Petitioner shall complete every part of the blank petition, including the sections requiring him to state the name and location of the court that entered the challenged judgment(s), the date of the judgment(s), and, if applicable, the offense(s) for which he was convicted and the length of the sentence that was imposed. Petitioner must also state the date(s) upon which he filed any state court proceedings in which he challenged his conviction and clearly set forth the grounds raised in each application and the date(s) upon which the court(s) denied each application. If petitioner is asking the Court to equitably toll the limitations period, he must set forth facts establishing a basis for the application of equitable tolling as stated above. If petitioner is asking the Court to apply an equitable exception to the limitations period, he must set forth facts establishing a basis for doing so. Petitioner must specify all of the grounds upon which his federal petition is based, and the facts supporting each ground, in the amended petition. Petitioner shall not incorporate any portion of his original papers into his amended petition by reference. He must include all relevant information in the amended petition and shall submit only one amended petition in accordance with the terms of this Decision and Order. Petitioner must also sign and date the petition; and it is further ORDERED that if petitioner does not file an amended petition within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of the Court, Habeas Rule 4; and it is further ORDERED that upon the filing of any amended petition, the Clerk shall forward the file in this matter to the Court for further review. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on January 27, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail on petitioner along with an amended Section 2254 Habeas Petition)(rep)
|
|
Filing 4
TEXT ORDER REOPENING CASE: This action was administratively closed due to petitioner's failure to comply with the filing fee requirements, and petitioner was directed to respond to the Order if he wished to pursue this action. Petitioner has now responded. The Clerk is directed to reopen this action and restore it to the Court's active docket. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on January 22, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail)(rep) Modified on 1/22/2020 to change the word plaintiff to petitioner (rep).
|
|
Filing 5
Cover letter from Peter Gomez, dated January 4, 2020, containing the $5.00 filing fee. (rep)
|
|
FILING FEE: $ 5.00, receipt number SYR056726. (rep)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER Directing Administrative Closure with Opportunity to Comply with Filing Fee Requirement: It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner's IFP Application is DENIED as incomplete; and it is further ORDERED that because this action was not properly commenced, the Clerk is directed to administratively close this action; and it is further ORDERED that if petitioner wants to pursue this action, he must so notify the Court WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS of the filing date of this Order and either: (1) pay the court's filing fee of five dollars ($5.00); or (2) submit a completed and signed IFP Application that has been certified by an appropriate prison official at his facility; and it is further ORDERED that upon petitioner's compliance with this order, the Clerk shall reopen this action and forward it to the Court for review; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on petitioner along with a blank IFP Application. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 12/20/2019. (Copy served via regular mail, along with blank forms)(meb)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION: for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Peter Gomez. (rep)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION: for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Peter Gomez. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Mailing Envelope)(rep)
|
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 New York Northern 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
| Search for this case: Gomez v. Royce | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Mark Royce | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Peter Gomez | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
