BROWN v. GOURLEY et al
| BOBBY BROWN |
| MICHAEL GOURLEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2023cv04024 |
| October 16, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| JOSEPH F LEESON |
| CRAIG M STRAW |
| 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 October 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by ROBERT M. FALIN on behalf of MICHAEL GOURLEY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY with Certificate of Service(FALIN, ROBERT) |
Filing 5
ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHALL FILE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED ANSWERS WITHIN SIXTY (60) 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. PETITIONER MAY, IF HE CHOOSES, FILE A REPLY TO THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE RESPONDENTS ANSWER IS FILED. THE PROTHONOTARY, CLERK OF COURT, OR OFFICE OF JUDICIAL SUPPORT OF MONTGOMERY 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. BROWN, CP-46-CR-0043-2017, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE CRAIG M. STRAW ON 10/24/23. 10/24/23 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(bw)
|
| COPY OF DOC. NO. 5 HAS BEEN E-MAILED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (bw) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER THAT 1. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE IS REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE CRAIG M. STRAW, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; 2. PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 72.1.IV(C), ALL ISSUES AND EVIDENCE SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND 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 3. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 10/23/23. 10/23/23 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(er)
|
| Doc. 1, and 4 regenerated to Montgomery County District Attorney's Office and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (er) |
| COPY OF DOC. NO. 3 HAS BEEN MAILED TO PRO SE. (bw) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (bw) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number 20013999 SCI-CAMP HILL (bw) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 20013999.), filed by BOBBY BROWN. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(bw) |
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.
