PILGRIM v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al
| DANIEL PILGRIM |
| PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINELY |
| 5:2018cv04360 |
| October 9, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 1, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Copy of Order dated 10/17/18 and envelope returned from the U.S. Postal Service addressed to DANIEL PILGRIM for the following reason: REFUSED/MAIL DOES NOT FOLLOW PA DOC MAIL POLICY. (jpd, ) |
Filing 3
ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL FURNISH PETITIONER WITH A BLANK COPY OF THIS COURT'SCURRENT STANDARD FORM FOR FILING A PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254 BEARING THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CIVIL ACTION NUMBER; PETITIONER SHALL COMPLETE, SIGN AND RETURN THE FORM TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AND PETITIONER'S FALURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF HIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO PETITIONER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 10/17/18. 10/18/18 ENTERED AND COPY OF ORDER AND FORMS MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER.(jpd, )
|
| Filing 2 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (ahf) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 186057.), filed by DANIEL PILGRIM. Memorandum. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(ahf) |
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.
