Holberg v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director

Justia Dockets & Filings Fifth Circuit Texas Northern District Holberg v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director

Holberg v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director

Petitioner:	Brittany Marlowe Holberg
Respondent:	William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Case Number:	2:2015cv00285
Filed:	September 16, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Amarillo Office
County:	Coryell
Presiding Judge:	Clinton E Averitte
Presiding Judge:	Mary Lou Robinson
Nature of Suit:	Death Penalty
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 13, 2021	Filing 334 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 8/13/2021) (vls)
September 30, 2015	Filing 53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FOR AMENDED PETITION WITH SCHEDULING ORDER -- Petitioner Holberg shall file an amended petition under Rule 2 of the Habeas Rules no later than October 30, 2015. The amended petition, and all briefing in support (but excl uding exhibits) shall total no more than 100 pages. Respondent is directed to answer the amended petition as required by Rule 5 of the Habeas Rules within sixty (60) days of the date that the amended petition is filed. Holberg may file a reply to Res pondent's answer in accordance with Rule 5( e) of the Habeas Rules, provided it is filed with the Court not more than twenty-five (25) days after the date of the certificate of service shown on the answer. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 9/30/2015) (awc)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 13, 2021

Filing 334 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 8/13/2021) (vls)

September 30, 2015

Filing 53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FOR AMENDED PETITION WITH SCHEDULING ORDER -- Petitioner Holberg shall file an amended petition under Rule 2 of the Habeas Rules no later than October 30, 2015. The amended petition, and all briefing in support (but excl uding exhibits) shall total no more than 100 pages. Respondent is directed to answer the amended petition as required by Rule 5 of the Habeas Rules within sixty (60) days of the date that the amended petition is filed. Holberg may file a reply to Res pondent's answer in accordance with Rule 5( e) of the Habeas Rules, provided it is filed with the Court not more than twenty-five (25) days after the date of the certificate of service shown on the answer. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 9/30/2015) (awc)

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 this case: Holberg v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Brittany Marlowe Holberg
Represented By:	Alan J Lazarus
Represented By:	Philip Alan Wischkaemper
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: William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Represented By:	Travis Golden Bragg
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.

Why Is My Information Online?