Scott v. Bridges
| Brian Tyrone Scott |
| Carrie Bridges and John O'Connor |
| 6:2022cv00277 |
| September 30, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma |
| Kimberly E West |
| Ronald A White |
| 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 August 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting #14 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion. Responses due by 12/12/2022 (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 14
MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254 ) by Carrie Bridges Responses due by 12/5/2022(Hunt, Caroline)
|
|
Filing 13
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Caroline E.J. Hunt on behalf of Carrie Bridges (Hunt, Caroline)
|
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White: Striking John O'Connor, Oklahoma Attorney General, as a respondent in this action. The only proper respondent is the warden at Petitioner's facility. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973). (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West, striking document filed in wrong case in error (Re: #10 Order ) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 10
**STRICKEN**ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West, directing Respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue and file a response to the petition( Responses due by 11/21/2022) (Re: #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254 ) (acg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/21/2022 (acg, Deputy Clerk).
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West, directing Respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue and file a response to the petition( Responses due by 11/21/2022) (Re: #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254 ) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White finding as moot #7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Filing fee paid in full 10/11/22. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by Brian Tyrone Scott Responses due by 10/27/2022 (eaw, Deputy Clerk).
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION for Notice of Removal by Brian Tyrone Scott (With attachments) Responses due by 10/27/2022 (eaw, Deputy Clerk).
|
|
FILING FEES Paid in Full on 10/11/2022 in the amount of $5, receipt number 20614 (Re: #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus- 2254) by Brian Tyrone Scott (eaw, Deputy Clerk).
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White denying #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Filing Fee due by 10/24/2022 (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 4
MINUTE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White, referring case to Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West for all further proceedings in accordance with jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 636. All future filings shall bear the case number CIV-22-277-RAW-KEW. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by Brian Tyrone Scott Responses due by 10/14/2022(acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 2
BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254 ) by Brian Tyrone Scott ; (With attachments)(acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 1
Fourth PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254 by Brian Tyrone Scott (acg, Deputy Clerk)
|
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 Oklahoma Eastern 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.
