Gonzales v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
| Mary Ann Gonzales |
| Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID |
| 1:2019cv00036 |
| March 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Sam R Cummings |
| Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (jak) |
| Filing 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mary Ann Gonzales. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (jak) |
Filing 2
ORDER: Petitioner filed a handwritten motion in 1:16-CR-025-C requesting that her federal sentence run concurrently with her state sentence. The Court understands Defendant to challenge the execution of her sentence, rather than the judgment in that criminal case. So the Court finds that the motion should be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. It is ORDERED that: (1) Defendant's motion requesting that her federal sentence run concurrently with her state sentence, filed on March 9, 2019, is construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241; (2) The Clerk is directed to open a new 2241 action and docket this Order and the March 19 motion in the new habeas action; (3) Defendant must file an amended petition using the 2241 form provided by the Clerk; AND pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of her inmate trust account; (4) The Clerk shall mail to Defendant a 2241 form, application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of inmate trust account marked with the Civil Action number assigned to the new 2241 action for her use in complying with this Order; (5) Failure to comply with this Order may lead to the dismissal of the 2241 action for failure to prosecute. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 3/22/2019) (Attachments: #1 IFP Application, #2 2241 Petition) (jak)
|
| Filing 1 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) (jak) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:2, 4. Fri Mar 22 13:22:25 CDT 2019 (crt) |
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 Texas Northern 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
| Search for this case: Gonzales v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Mary Ann Gonzales | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
