FRYE v. ZAKEN et al
| TARANCE FRYE |
| MICHAEL ZAKEN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2024cv00322 |
| January 23, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| JOHN M YOUNGE |
| 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 March 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH FRYE WITH A BLANK COPY OF THIS COURTS CURRENT STANDARD FORM FOR FILING A PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254, BEARING THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE NUMBER; IF FRYE INTENDS TO PURSUE THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254, HE SHALL COMPLETE THE FORM WITH HIS CHALLENGES TO THE CONVICTIONS IN CP-15-CR-0001412-2011 ONLY, SIGN 2 THE COMPLETED PETITION, AND RETURN IT TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AND IF FRYE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, HIS CASE MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN M. YOUNGE ON 3/22/24. 3/22/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. *NOT MAILED TO PETITIONER. (jaa, )
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by LESLIE S. PIKE on behalf of THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER (PIKE, LESLIE) |
| DOC. 5 AND BLANK FORMS MAILED TO PRO SE. (sg) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER THAT, RECOGNIZING THAT RULE 2(E) OF THE RULES GOVERNING 2254 CASES STATES THAT [A] PETITIONER WHO SEEKS RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS OF MORE THAN ONE STATE COURT MUST FILE A SEPARATE PETITION COVERING THE JUDGMENT OR JUDGMENTS OF EACH COURT, AND RECOGNIZING THAT FRYE IS ATTEMPTING TO CHALLENGE BOTH HIS CONVICTION IN NOVEMBER 2012 OF TWO COUNTS OF MANUFACTURING, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER, IN CP-15-CR-0001412-2011 AND HIS CONVICTION IN JUNE OF 2019 OF FOUR COUNTS OF MANUFACTURING, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER IN CP-15-CR-0003285-2017 IN THE PRESENT PETITION, THE COURT LIMITS THE CHALLENGE BROUGHT UNDER THIS DOCKET NUMBER TO HIS CONVICTION IN CP-15-CR-0001412-2011 AND SEVERS THE CHALLENGES TO FRYES CONVICTION IN CP-15-CR-0003285-2017. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO OPEN A SEPARATE AND NEW SECTION 2254 PETITION TO CHALLENGE CP-15-CR-0003285-2017 AND SHALL DUPLICATE FILE THE HABEAS PETITION (ECF NO. 1) ON THE NEWLY OPENED DOCKET. THESE MATTERS SHALL BE DEEMED RELATED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH FRYE WITH TWO BLANK COPIES OF THIS COURTS CURRENT STANDARD FORM FOR FILING A PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254. IF FRYE INTENDS TO PURSUE THESE MATTERS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254, HE SHALL COMPLETE BOTH OF THESE FORMS, SIGN THE COMPLETED PETITIONS, AND RETURN EACH TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN M. YOUNGE ON 2/9/24. 2/9/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. PRO SE PETITIONER NOT MAILED. (va)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by LESLIE S. PIKE on behalf of THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER (PIKE, LESLIE) |
| Doc. 3 mailed to Pro Se. (er) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE NOTICE RE: GUIDELINES. PRO SE PETITIONER NOT MAILED. (va) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number 20016709 (va) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 20016709.), filed by TARANCE FRYE. (va) |
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.
