Milligan v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
| Mark Milligan, Sr |
| Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID |
| 3:2019cv01972 |
| August 16, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Sam A Lindsay |
| Irma Carrillo Ramirez |
| Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER of USCA: Movant's motion to dismiss successive habeas case without prejudice is GRANTED. (axm)
|
|
Filing 5
Order: Habeas corpus petition is successive, and the clerk is directed to transfer the matter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Fifth Circuit notified via copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing.) (Originally filed in case 3:17-cv-1837 as document #46) (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 8/16/2019) (axm)
|
| Filing 2 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (axm) |
| 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). Case received over counter/electronically. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) 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. (axm) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1,2,4,5. Fri Aug 16 16:20:51 CDT 2019 (crt) |
|
Filing 4
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION re: #3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The new claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the motion, (see doc. 41 at 2-3), should be construed as a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, SEVERED, and TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Originally filed in case 3:17-cv-1837 as document #44) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 7/29/2019) (axm)
|
| Filing 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mark Milligan, Sr. 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. (Originally filed in case 3:17-cv-1837-L as document #41) (axm) |
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: Milligan 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: Mark Milligan, Sr | |
| 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.
