RODRIGUEZ v. ESTOCK et al
| ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ |
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and SUPERINTENDENT LEE J. ESTOCK |
| 2:2021cv00142 |
| January 7, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| JAN E DUBOIS |
| TIMOTHY J SAVAGE |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 4, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| COPY OF ORDER #6 MAILED TO PRO SE (jpd, ) |
Filing 6
ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS TO HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT KATE BARKMAN, CLERK OF COURT ON 3/1/21. 3/3/21 ENTERED. PRO SE PETITIONER NOT MAILED. (va, )
|
| COPY OF ORDER #4 MAILED TO PRO SE. (jpd, ) |
|
Filing 5
ORDERED THAT PRO SE PETITIONER ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT PRO SE PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE IN HIS INMATE ACCOUNT TO PAY THE REQUIRED $5 FILING FEE. IF PRO SE PETITIONER SEEKS TO PROCEED WITH THIS CASE, HE SHALL REMIT THE REQUIRED $5 FILING FEE TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS DIRECTIVE MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. THE COURT NOTING THAT PRO SE PETITIONER FILED A PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, BUT DID NOT USE THE CURRENT STANDARD 28 U.S.C. 2254 FORM REQUIRED BY THE COURT, AND THAT THE PETITION FILED BY PRO SE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTAIN THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE COURTS STANDARD FORM, WHICH PROVIDE AS OUTLINED HEREIN; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THATR PRO SE PETITIONER SHALL REVIEW THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS. PRO SE PETITIONER MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS. AMONG OTHER REQUIREMENTS, PRO SE PETITIONER MUST INCLUDE IN HIS PETITION ALL GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM THE CONVICTION OR SENTENCE THAT HE WISHES TO CHALLENGE, AND HE MUST STATE THE FACTS THAT SUPPORT EACH GROUND. IF PRO SE PETITIONER FAILS TO SET FORTH ALL GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN THE PETITION, HE MAY BE BARRED FROM PRESENTING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AT A LATER DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES RESTRICTING SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS AND THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION IN 28 U.S.C. 2244(D); PRO SE PETITIONER SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, COMPLETE AND RETURN THE NOTICE OF ELECTION FORM ATTACHED TO THIS ORDER IN WHICH HE CONFIRMS THAT HE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS ORDER AND ELECTS TO EITHER (1) WITHDRAW HIS CURRENT PETITION OR (2) HAVE THE PETITION CONSTRUED, AND RULED ON, UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254. IF PRO SE PETITIONER FAILS TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THE NOTICE OF ELECTION FORM TO THIS COURT WITHIN THE THIRTY-DAY PERIOD, THE COURT WILL RULE ON THE CURRENT PETITION AS FILED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 1/28/21. 1/29/21 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE.(jpd, )
|
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ. (jpd, ) |
| Filing 3 PETITIONER ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ' APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.(jpd, ) |
| COPY OF NOTICE OF PRO SE GUIDELINES #2 MAILED TO RODRIGUEZ. (fdc) |
| Filing 2 PRO SE NOTICE RE: GUIDELINES MAILED TO RODRIGUEZ(rf, ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ. (No fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Designation form)(mbh, ) |
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.
