Purvis-Mitchell v. Bacon et al
| Tyler Purvis-Mitchell |
| Craig Apple, Antoinette T. Bacon and Director of United States Marshal Service |
| 9:2020cv01224 |
| October 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Mae A D'Agostino |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| USCA Case Number 20-3921 for #7 Notice of Appeal filed by Tyler Purvis-Mitchell. (nas, ) |
| Filing 10 ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals regarding the #7 Notice of Appeal. (rep) |
| Filing 9 DECISION AND ORDER: Denying Petitioner's #8 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis WITHOUT PREJUDICE for nonconformance with Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms; and it is further ORDERED that, if petitioner wants to pursue his appeal in forma pauperis, he must file an amended motion to do so that complies with Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order. The Clerk is directed to send petitioner blank copies of an IFP Application and Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon petitioner and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with the Local Rules and Rule 24(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on November 19, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail on petitioner, along with a blank IFP on Appeal Application and Form 4).(rep) |
| Set Deadlines: Notice of Compliance Deadline 12/21/2020. (rep) |
| Filing 8 MOTION: for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, filed by Tyler Purvis-Mitchell. (rep) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEAL: Regarding the #2 Order, #3 Judgment, and #6 Order on Motion for Reconsideration. Filed by Tyler Purvis-Mitchell. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter and Mailing Envelope)(rep) |
| Filing 6 DECISION AND ORDER: Denying with prejudice Petitioner's #5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on November 3, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail) (rep) |
| Filing 5 MOTION: For Reconsideration, filed by Tyler Purvis-Mitchell. (rep) |
| Filing 4 Letter from Tyler Purvis-Mitchell, dated October 11, 2020, requesting a copy of his docket sheet. {Mailing envelope attached}. (rep) Modified on 10/16/2020 - A copy of the docket sheet is being sent to the petitioner via regular mail (rep). |
| Filing 3 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition, Dkt. No. #1 , is DISMISSED, all of the above pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Honorable Judge Mae A. D'Agostino, dated the 13th day of October, 2020.(Copy served via regular mail) (rep) |
| Filing 2 DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the petition, Dkt. No. #1 , is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order on petitioner in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on October 13, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail)(rep) |
| Filing 1 PETITION: For Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Tyler Purvis-Mitchell. (Filing fee $ 5.00, Receipt No. ALB011874.) (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
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.
