ONESKO v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
PATRICK I. ONESKO |
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, WARDEN OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY |
2:2023cv00413 |
March 10, 2023 |
US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
Patricia L Dodge |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 ORDER DIRECTING that the United States Marshal shall make service of this order, together with a copy of the petition and brief in support, upon the respondents by certified mail, costs to be advanced by the United States. Within 21 days of service of this order, the Respondents shall respond to the allegations of the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge on 4/13/2023. (mqe) |
Filing 7 ORDER adding the District Attorney of Allegheny County as a respondent in this habeas case. This is in accordance with Local Rule 2254.B.1, which explains that when a petitioner is challenging his or her state court conviction or sentence in a 2254 action, he or she must name as a respondent "the District Attorney of the county in which he or she was convicted and sentenced." It is further ORDERED that by 4/18/23 counsel for Petitioner shall provide the Court with three service copies of the #1 Petition and #6 Brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge on 4/4/23. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jpe) |
Filing 6 BRIEF in support of #1 Writ of Habeas Corpus by PATRICK I. ONESKO. (Confusione, Michael) Modified text on 3/29/2023. (jv) |
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re #6 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Terminated as a motion since court Modified original entry as #6 BRIEF in support of #1 Writ of Habeas Corpus. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) |
Filing 5 ORDER. Petitioner shall file a memorandum of law in support of the Petition by 3/29/2023. See Local Rule 2254.B.2.b. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge on 3/15/23. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jpe) |
Filing 4 ORDER granting #2 Motion for Michael Confusione to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge on 3/15/23. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jpe) |
Filing 3 Proposed Order re #2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by PATRICK I. ONESKO. (Confusione, Michael) |
Filing 2 MOTION for attorney Michael James Confusione to Appear Pro Hac Vice, for Petitioner Patrick I. Onesko (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-7588034) by PATRICK I. ONESKO. (Confusione, Michael) |
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re #2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ERROR: Proposed Order was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised to file a proposed order by using the Proposed Order event and linking it to the document in question. (jv) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Receipt No. APAWDC-7582593, $5, ), filed by PATRICK I. ONESKO. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (jv) |
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 Western 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.