PARKS-EL v. DIGGS
SHAWN DEWAYNE PARKS-EL |
MR. KENNETH DIGGS |
1:2022cv00514 |
July 1, 2022 |
US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
WILLIAM L OSTEEN |
JOE L WEBSTER |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Respondent KENNETH DIGGS. CADEN WILLIAM HAYES is substituted as counsel for Respondent. Attorney KRISTIN JO UICKER terminated. (HAYES, CADEN) |
***Attorney KRISTIN JO UICKER for KENNETH DIGGS added. (Bowers, Alexis) |
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: KENNETH DIGGS answer due 9/14/2022. (Bowers, Alexis) |
Receipt of Funds in the amount of $ 5.00. Receipt Number NCM058244. (Bowers, Alexis) |
Filing 4 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 07/22/2022, that the Petitioner be, and is hereby, permitted to file said action in this Court without prepayment of the $5.00 fee, but that further proceedings be stayed 30 days from the entry of this Order or until Petitioner has submitted to the Court the $5.00 filing fee, whichever date is earlier. Petitioner's failure to submit the $5.00 filing fee within the 30-day period will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition, accompanied by a five-dollar filing fee or a current application to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon the submission of the $5.00 filing fee by Petitioner within the 30-day period, Respondent shall file an answer with this Court, pursuant to Rules 4 and 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases: within forty ( 40) days from the date Petitioner's filing fee is received. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER IN A TIMELY MANNER WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THIS ACTION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO PETITIONER. (Bowers, Alexis) |
Filing 3 MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. 2254 by Petitioner SHAWN DEWAYNE PARKS-EL. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Envelope - Front and Back) (Bowers, Alexis) |
Case Assigned to JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR and MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Butler, Carol) |
CASE REFERRED for Screening (Butler, Carol) |
Filing 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by SHAWN DEWAYNE PARKS-EL. (Attachments: #1 Envelope - Front and Back)(Butler, Carol) (Main Document[ ]2 replaced on 7/6/2022 to correct image) (Butler, Carol) |
Filing 1 APPLICATION to Proceed IFP by SHAWN DEWAYNE PARKS-EL. (Butler, Carol) |
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 North Carolina Middle 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: PARKS-EL v. DIGGS | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: SHAWN DEWAYNE PARKS-EL | |
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 ] |
Respondent: MR. KENNETH DIGGS | |
Represented By: | CADEN WILLIAM HAYES |
Represented By: | KRISTIN JO UICKER |
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.