YOUNG v. PENCHISHEN et al
| CANDIDO YOUNG |
| DAVID PENCHISHEN, TERENCE HOUCK, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and MARGARET STAHLNECKER |
| 5:2022cv04586 |
| November 10, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| GENE EK PRATTER |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| DOC. NO. #4 ALONG WITH IFP FORMS MAILED TO PRO SE 11/22/22. (amas) |
Filing 4
ORDER THAT LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH MR. YOUNG WITH A BLANK COPY OF THIS COURT'S CURRENT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (SHORT FORM) BEARING THE ABOVE CIVIL ACTION NUMBER. IF MR. YOUNG FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, HIS CASE MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR FURTHER TO PROSECUTE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 11/21/22.11/21/22 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE.(mbh)
|
| Filing 3 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (MAILED TO PRO SE) (er) |
| Filing 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by CANDIDO YOUNG. (IFP APPLICATION FILED). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(er) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS filed by CANDIDO YOUNG. (ENVELOPE ATTACHED).(er) |
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.
