Nelson v. Marques
| Leroy Nelson |
| Rick Marques |
| 1:2019cv00162 |
| July 31, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Sam R Cummings |
| James Wesley Hendrix |
| Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER. The Court unfiled Petitioner's lengthy memorandum and appendix after finding that they were in violation of the page limits set by Local Rule 7.2(c). Now, Petitioner has filed a #8 motion for leave to exceed the page limit. He asks the Court to permit him to refile his memorandum and appendix without making any changes. The Court finds that Petitioner has now shown any extraordinary or compelling reasons to allow him to exceed-by more than 100 pages-the page limits set by the local rules. As a result, Petitioner's motion is denied. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 9/18/2019) (jmc)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:9. Wed Sep 18 11:28:08 CDT 2019 (crt) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limit at the Memorandum of Law in Accordance with Local Rule 7.2. Briefs filed by Leroy Nelson. (jmc) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER. Petitioner filed a 141-page memorandum (Dkt. No. 2-1) with an appendix containing 59 pages of exhibits (Dkt. No. 2-2) in support of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Local Rule 7.2(c) limits briefs to 25 pages unless the Court grants permission to exceed the page limit. Petitioner did not seek permission from the Court before filing his lengthy memorandum. Nor did he show any extraordinary or compelling reason to allow the excessive filing. As a result, the Court finds that Petitioner's 141-page memorandum (Dkt. No. 2-1) and the attached appendix of exhibits (Dkt. No. 2-2) should be unfiled. The Clerk will return the memorandum and exhibits to Petitioner. Petitioner may file a compliant brief within 20 days from the date of this order. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 9/4/2019) (jmc)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:7. Wed Sep 4 15:13:53 CDT 2019 (crt) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE filed by Leroy Nelson re: #4 Order And Notice of Deficiency. (**Clerk's note: a copy of the public docket report mailed to Petitioner at address listed on 08/16/2019 correspondence.) (Attachments: #1 Attachment to Response, #2 Copy of original payment submission with cover letter) (jak) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:. Tue Aug 13 14:52:53 CDT 2019 (crt) |
|
Filing 5
Pursuant to Special Order 3-331 the clerk is to reassign all cases assigned to Judge Cummings that do not appear on Exhibit A to the docket of US District Judge Wes Hendrix, and all such cases are to carry the suffix letter "H." (The clerk has mailed a copy to all non-ECF users.) (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 8/9/2019) (lrl)
|
|
Filing 4
Deficiency Order. Leroy Nelson must address the following deficiency: failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of his inmate trust account. It is, therefore, ORDERED Petitioner shall pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of his inmate trust account within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Failure to comply with this order may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCvP 41(b). (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 8/5/2019) (Attachments: #1 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis) (jak)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:4. Mon Aug 5 14:50:35 CDT 2019 (crt) |
| Filing 3 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (jak) |
| Filing 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Leroy Nelson. 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. ***Clerk's Note: Attachments UNFILED PER ORDER #7 *** (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibits) (jak) Modified on 9/4/2019 (jmc). |
| 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:3. Wed Jul 31 10:13:50 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: Nelson v. Marques | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Rick Marques | |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: Leroy Nelson | |
| 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.
