Gillaspie v. Ward et al
Zachary Don Gillaspie |
David Vernon, Terry Brown, Robert Ward, City of Alvarado and Lisa Powell |
3:2019cv01809 |
July 29, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
A Joe Fish |
Irma Carrillo Ramirez |
Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 Received letter from USCA5: Gillaspie's motion for authorization to file a second or successive 2254 application is DENIED. As Gillaspie has failed to heed our prior warning, Gillaspie is SANCTIONED and ordered to pay the amount of $100 to the Clerk of this court. He is BARRED from filing in this court or in any court subject to thiscourt's jurisdiction any challenge to his convictions for theft and tampering with evidence until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file such challenge. (epm) |
***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1,2,4,5. Tue Jul 30 12:28:38 CDT 2019 (crt) |
Filing 5 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) [overall] motion, received on May 7, 2019 (docket entry 46 ), is CONSTRUED as a successive petition and TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to: (1) terminate the motion in this civil rights case; (2) open a new habeas case for administrative purposes only; (3) docket the motion in that new case as a 2254 petition filed on May 7, 2019; (4) directly assign the new case to the same district judge and magistrate judge as in this case; (5) file a copy of the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the order accepting the findings, conclusions, and recommendation in the new case; and (6) without further judicial action, immediately TRANSFER the newly opened 2254 action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 7/29/2019) (aaa) |
Filing 2 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (aaa) |
Filing 1 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Ramirez (see Special Order 3). Initiating documents received by mail. (For court use only - links to the #national index and to the prior sanctions found within the #circuit index.) Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (aaa) |
Filing 4 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: the plaintiff's 46 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) [overall] motion. Based on the relevant findings and applicable law, the motion should be construed as a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and TRANSFERRED to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 7/2/2019) (mcrd) (Entered: 07/30/2019) |
Filing 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Zachary Don Gillaspie. 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. (aaa) |
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
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.