ARMSTRONG v. BRITTAIN et al
| JAMES ARMSTRONG |
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, KATHY BRITTAIN and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE |
| 2:2019cv05210 |
| November 4, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| BERLE M SCHILLER |
| LYNNE A SITARSKI |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED. RESPONDENTS SHALL FILE A RESPONSE NO LATER THAN MARCH 3, 2020. SHOULD PETITIONER WISH TO FILE A REPLY TO THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER, HIS REPLY SHALL BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE ANSWER. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI ON 12/30/19. 12/31/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by JOHN F.X. REILLY on behalf of All Defendants (REILLY, JOHN) |
| Filing 7 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE.Certificate of Service.Motions referred to LYNNE A. SITARSKI.(REILLY, JOHN) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONERS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 5), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PETITIONERS MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI ON 12/17/2019.12/19/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER.(nd, )
|
| Filing 5 PETITIONER JAMES ARMSTRONG'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, Motions referred to LYNNE A. SITARSKI. (jpd ) |
|
Filing 4
ORDERED THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DELAWARE COUNTY SHALL FILE A SPECIFIC AND DETAILED ANSWER TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY 1/2/20. THE CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THIS COURT COPIES OF ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF NOTES OF TESTIMONY AT ARRAIGNMENT, TRIAL, SENTENCING, SUPPRESSION HEARINGS, POST CONVICTION HEARINGS, PETITIONS, PLEADINGS, OPINIONS AND BRIEFS OF STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF COMMONWEALTH v. JAMES EDWARD ARMSTRONG, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE,CP-23-CR-0005475-2011. PRISONER STATE RECORD DUE BY 1/2/2020. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI ON 12/3/19. 12/3/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, CERTIFIED MAIL WITH COPY OF PETITION, ORDER AND DOCKET TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DELAWARE, ATTORNEY GENERALS OF PHILADELPHIA AND HARRISBURG FAXED TO THE CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY.(jpd, )
|
| COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, CERTIFIED MAIL WITH COPY OF PETITION, ORDER AND DOCKET TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DELAWARE, ATTORNEY GENERALS OF PHILADELPHIA AND HARRISBURG FAXED TO THE CLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY. |
|
Filing 3
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL PROVIDE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF DELAWARE COUNTY WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 11/26/2019. 11/27/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(sg, )
|
| Filing 2 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES. MAILED TO ARMSTRONG. (fdc) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus together with statement in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 206369.), filed by JAMES ARMSTRONG.(fdc, ) |
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 Pennsylvania 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.
