Drake v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Drake v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Petitioner:	Brian Wayne Drake
Respondent:	Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
Case Number:	3:2017cv00797
Filed:	March 21, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Dallas Office
County:	Dallas
Presiding Judge:	David L. Horan
Presiding Judge:	Ed Kinkeade
Nature of Suit:	General
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
September 8, 2020	Filing 48 ORDER ACCEPTING 45 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The Court therefore TRANSFERS Petitioner's unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas applications to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action. Further, because the two 43 , 44 motions Petitioner under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) are in substance successive habeas applications, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open for statistical purposes two new Section 2254 cases (nature of suit 530 directly assigned, per Special Order 3-250, to United States District Judge Ed Kinkeade and United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan) and to close both on the basis of the order. (Civil Case 3:20-cv-2810 (#43) and 3:20-cv-2811 (#44) opened) (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/8/2020) (oyh) Modified docket text on 9/10/2020 (oyh).
February 26, 2020	Filing 40 ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendations. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/26/2020) (chmb)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 8, 2020

Filing 48 ORDER ACCEPTING 45 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The Court therefore TRANSFERS Petitioner's unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas applications to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action. Further, because the two 43 , 44 motions Petitioner under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) are in substance successive habeas applications, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open for statistical purposes two new Section 2254 cases (nature of suit 530 directly assigned, per Special Order 3-250, to United States District Judge Ed Kinkeade and United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan) and to close both on the basis of the order. (Civil Case 3:20-cv-2810 (#43) and 3:20-cv-2811 (#44) opened) (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/8/2020) (oyh) Modified docket text on 9/10/2020 (oyh).

February 26, 2020

Filing 40 ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendations. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/26/2020) (chmb)

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: Drake 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: Brian Wayne Drake
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.

Why Is My Information Online?