Robertson v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
| Royal Clark Robertson |
| Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID |
| 2:2019cv00235 |
| December 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Matthew J Kacsmaryk |
| Lee Ann Reno |
| Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Public correspondence filed, deputy clerk response attached, received from Royal Clark Robertson. (Attachments: #1 Clerk's Response Letter) (nhp) |
| Filing 6 Case Paperwork filed by Royal Clark Robertson. (nhp) |
Filing 5
JUDGMENT: Of equal date herewith, the undersigned United States District Judge has entered an order DISMISSING without prejudice the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 12/31/2019) (nhp)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. It is ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 12/31/2019) (nhp)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:4, 5. Tue Dec 31 08:32:17 CST 2019 (crt) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1,2. (Copy of first page of file-marked petition also mailed to petitioner.) Thu Dec 26 14:02:36 CST 2019 (crt) |
| Filing 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Royal Clark Robertson. 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. (awc) |
| Filing 2 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (awc) |
| Filing 1 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Reno (see Special Order 3). Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Reno). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Robertson 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: Royal Clark Robertson | |
| 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.
