Swinney v. Director, TDCJ-CID
| Brian James Swinney |
| Director, TDCJ-CID |
| 4:2022cv00105 |
| February 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Mark Pittman |
| Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
FINAL JUDGMENT: In accordance with the order issued this same day and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 3/22/2022) (sre)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: It is therefore ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 3/22/2022) (sre)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:8,9. Tue Mar 22 13:14:37 CDT 2022 (crt) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER & NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY: Brian James Swinney must address the following deficiency: The $5.00 filing fee for habeas petitions has not been paid nor have an application to proceed in forma pauperis and certificate of inmate trust account reflecting the amount of funds in Petitioner's inmate account been submitted. Failure to comply with this order may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCvP 41(b). Deadline to cure the deficiency is thirty (30) days. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 2/10/2022) (Attachments: #1 MIFP) (twd)
|
| Filing 6 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (sre) |
| Filing 5 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) File to: Appropriate Staff Attorney. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. Attorneys are further reminded that, if necessary, they must comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) within 14 days or risk the possible dismissal of this case without prejudice or without further notice. (sre) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:7. Thu Feb 10 16:41:07 CST 2022 (crt) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:5,6. New case NEF sent to plaintiff. Thu Feb 10 09:27:33 CST 2022 (crt) |
|
Filing 4
Electronic Order transferring habeas corpus petition to the Fort Worth Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for further proceedings. Under the authority of Miscellaneous Order No. 6, this action is transferred to the Fort Worth Division, where the Tarrant County conviction Petitioner contests arose. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford on 2/9/2022) (chmb)
|
| NEW CASE NUMBER 4:22-cv-00105-P has been opened following the order of transfer entered in case number 3:22-cv-00309-N-BT. Future filings should reflect only the new case number and be directed to the proper division (see LR 5.1(a)). Clerk to complete new case processing and mail notice of this entry to any party who did not receive it electronically. (rekc) |
| Filing 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Brian James Swinney. 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. (oyh) |
| Filing 2 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (oyh) |
| Filing 1 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Rutherford (see Special Order 3). Initiating documents received by mail. 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 Rutherford). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (oyh) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1,2. Tue Feb 8 15:51:39 CST 2022 (crt) |
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: Swinney v. 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 James Swinney | |
| 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: 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.
