ELLIOTT v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR PHILA COUNTY et al
| NASIR ELLIOTT |
| DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR PHILA COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and SUPT. MICHAEL ZAKEN |
| 2:2022cv00072 |
| January 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| ELIZABETH T HEY |
| JUAN R SANCHEZ |
| Habeas Corpus: Vacate Sentence |
| 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 February 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY SHALL FILE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED ANSWERS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 5, 28 U.S.C. FOL. 2254. IF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FINDS THAT ANY CLAIM IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2244(D), HE MAY FOREGO A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF SUCH CLAIM AND FOCUS THE ARGUMENT REGARDING THAT CLAIM SOLELY ON TIMELINESS. AS REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. 3771(B)(2), THE COMMONWEALTH IS FURTHER ORDERED TO ENSURE THAT IN A FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF A STATE CONVICTION, ANY CRIME VICTIMS ARE AFFORDED THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIMES VICTIMS ACT, AS AMENDED JULY 27, 2006. THE PROTHONOTARY, CLERK OF COURT, OR OFFICE OF JUDICIAL SUPPORT OF PHILADELPHIA 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. ELLIOTT, CP-51-CR-0907231-2002, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY ON 2/17/22. 2/17/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va)
|
| Copy of #4 Order to District Atty, Atty Gen & CCP Philadelphia emailed 2/17/22. (va) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE IS REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH T. HEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 72.1.IV(C), ALL ISSUES AND EVIDENCE SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND THAT NEW ISSUES AND EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE RAISED AFTER THE FILING OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IF THEY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 2/16/22. 2/17/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va) (Main Document 3 replaced on 2/17/2022) (va). Modified on 2/17/2022 (va). Modified on 2/17/2022 (md).
|
| Copy of #3 Order, #1 Petition & Docket Report emailed to Atty Gen & District Atty on 2/17/22. (va) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA D. WOLSON TO CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SNCHEZ, AS RELATED TO NASIR ELLIOTT V. LOUIS FOLINO, ET AL, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 13-CV-01944. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 2/16/22. 2/16/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number APAEDC-15649409.), filed by NASIR ELLIOTT. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Designation Form, #3 Case Management Track Form, #4 Memorandum, #5 Exhibit A, #6 Exhibit B, #7 Exhibit C, #8 Exhibit D)(BRIDGE, BRADLEY) |
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.
