DWYER v. ARMEL et al
| JOHN DWYER |
| ERIC ARMEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF FAYETTE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2021cv05697 |
| December 31, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| WENDY BEETLESTONE |
| 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 May 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 COPY OF ORDER FROM THE USCA THIRD CIRCUIT THAT THE FOREGOING APPLICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. &2254 IS DENIED. DWYER HAS NOT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT HIS CLAIMS ARE BASED ON QUALIFYING NEW FACTS OR NEW LAW UNDER THAT PROVISION; ETC. (JL) |
Filing 3
ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. & 1631, THE INSTANT PETITION IS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE CONSIDERED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 2/24/22. 2/24/22 ENTERED AND MAILED TO PRO SE.(JL)
|
| Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number PPE235728 (rf, ) |
| DOC. #2 MAILED TO PRO SE JOHN DWYER (tomg) |
| Filing 2 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (JL) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5.), filed by JOHN DWYER. (Attachments: #1 EXHIBITS)(JL ) |
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.
