De La Paz v. Bishop
| Edgar Rodolfo De La Paz |
| Ricky Bishop |
| 1:2019cv00199 |
| September 17, 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 November 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
Deficiency Show Cause Order: Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court's Order #4 . It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner shall have fourteen (14)days from the date of this Order to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis with a certificate of his inmate trust account and show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for want of prosecution for failing to respond to the Court's Order. The failure of Petitioner to respond to this Order shall result in the dismissal of his petition without further notice. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 11/5/2019) (jak)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:5. Tue Nov 5 09:59:54 CST 2019 (crt) |
|
Filing 4
Order and Notice of Deficiency: Edgar Rodolfo De La Paz must address the following deficiency: failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and certificate of his inmate trust account. Failure to comply with this order may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCvP 41(b). Deadline to cure the deficiency is 30 days. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 9/23/2019) (Attachments: #1 Application to Proceed IFP) (mmg)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:4. Mon Sep 23 13:35:29 CDT 2019 (crt) |
| Filing 3 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party.. (jak) |
| Filing 2 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) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edgar Rodolfo De La Paz. 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. (Attachments: #1 Brief in Support, #2 Exhibit A) (jak) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:3. Tue Sep 17 10:08:33 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: De La Paz v. Bishop | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Edgar Rodolfo De La Paz | |
| 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: Ricky Bishop | |
| 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.
