Williams v. Schenck
| Ramaine Williams |
| Cayuga County Sheriff, New York State Dept of Correction and Brian Schenck |
| 9:2022cv01334 |
| December 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Therese Wiley Dancks |
| Brenda K Sannes |
| 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 February 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
AMENDED PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ramaine Williams. (Attachments: #1 Mailing envelope)(meb)
|
|
Filing 4
DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the Clerk is respectfully directed to update the caption to reflect the proper respondent; and it is further 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; 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. No answer to the petition will be required from the respondent until petitioner has submitted the amended petition, and the Court has had the opportunity to review his arguments. (Notice of Compliance Deadline 2/3/2023, Case Review Deadline 3/6/2023). Signed by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/4/2023. (Copy served via regular mail, along with blank forms)(meb)
|
|
Filing 3
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 s/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 Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on December 19, 2022. {text order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)
|
|
Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number SYR061833 (nas, )
|
|
Filing 2
ORDER Directing Administrative Closure with Opportunity to Comply with Filing Fee Requirement: it is hereby 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 Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 12/14/2022. (Copy served via regular mail, along with blank forms)(meb)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ramaine Williams. (Mailing envelope included)(meb)
|
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.
