Rajesh v. Barr et al
| Hamal Rajesh |
| Kirsten Nielsen, William Barr, Jeffrey Searls and Thomas Feeley |
| 6:2019cv06415 |
| June 5, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Frank P Geraci |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 29, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 TEXT ORDER: Respondent's #5 motion for extension of time is GRANTED and the response to the petition is now due by August 19, 2019. SO ORDERED. A copy of this Text Order has been mailed to the pro se petitioner. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/25/19. (GMS) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #3 Order,, by William Barr, Thomas Feeley, Kirsten Nielsen, Jeffrey Searls.(Moar, Daniel) |
| Filing 4 TEXT ORDER denying #2 Motion for an Order to Show Cause. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases authorizes the district court judge to "order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other pleading within a fixed time or to take such other action the judge may order." See Baker v. Middlebrooks, No. 5:08CV44-RS-MD, 2008 WL 938725, *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2008) ("Petitioner is directed to the jurisprudence holding that [28 U.S.C. 2243's] time limit is subordinate to the district court's discretionary authority to set deadlines under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases." (collecting cases)); see also Bey v. Payant, No. 05CIV0599RMBRLE, 2005 WL 3046977, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2005) (28 U.S.C. 2243's three-day period to file a return does not apply to briefing schedules). Consistent with Rule 4, the Court gives respondents 45 days to respond to petitions for habeas corpus filed under 2241 and 2254. Accordingly, the current #3 Scheduling Order remains in place and Respondents have until July 29, 2019 to answer the Petition. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 6/13/2019. A copy of this Text Order has been sent to Petitioner. (AFM) |
Filing 3
SCHEDULING ORDER directing Respondent's answer and memorandum of law due or a motion to dismiss by 7/29/19. Petitioner shall have 25 days upon receipt of answer (or motion to dismiss) to file a response. Clerk shall serve a copy of #1 petition and this order electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western of New York at |
| Copy of #1 Petition and #3 Scheduling Order sent electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of New York. Mailed copy of #3 Scheduling Order to pro se petitioner. (JHF) |
| Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number BUF064652. (JHF) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Hamal Rajesh. (JHF) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Hamal Rajesh. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope) (JHF) |
| Prisoner Pro Se Packet consisting of Privacy Notice, Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge and Civil Case Timeline mailed to petitioner. (JHF) |
| Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (JHF) |
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 Western 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.
