Velasco v. Hayden
| Mark Andrew Velasco |
| Sharon Wilson, State of Texas and Calvin Hayden |
| 4:2023cv00291 |
| March 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Reed C O'Connor |
| 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 May 9, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
FINAL JUDGMENT: Consistent with the order of dismissal signed this date, the petition of Mark Andrew Velasco is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 5/9/2023) (mmw)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: To date, Petitioner has failed to comply with the order. Therefore, the petition is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 5/9/2023) (mmw)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:10, 11. Tue May 9 11:23:50 CDT 2023 (crt) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: The Court has reviewed his #4 application to proceed in forma pauperis and finds that it must be DENIED. Petitioner must pay the applicable $5.00 filing fee within thirty days. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/23/2023) (mmw)
|
| Filing 8 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party (mmw) |
| Filing 7 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: STSJ. 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. (mmw) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:9. Thu Mar 23 13:39:55 CDT 2023 (crt) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:7, 8, NEF new case number. Thu Mar 23 09:29:10 CDT 2023 (crt) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:5,6. Thu Mar 23 08:56:03 CDT 2023 (crt) |
| NEW CASE NUMBER 4:23-cv-00291-O Velasco v. Wilson et al has been opened following the order of transfer entered in case number 3:23cv0618-E. 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. (ldm) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER transferring this case 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, the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 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 Renee Harris Toliver on 3/22/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF JUDICIAL SCREENING AND STANDING ORDER. Judicial screening of this case is pending. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 habeas cases. The Court will order Respondent to file an answer, if necessary, after screening is complete. It is therefore ORDERED that (1) no motions for appointment of counsel shall be filed until the Court has completed the screening process, (2) all discovery in this case is stayed until Respondent is ordered to file an answer or until further order of the court, (3) no amendments or supplements to the habeas corpus petition shall be filed without prior Court approval, and (4) any motion to amend the habeas petition must be accompanied by a complete proposed amended petition on the required form. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner must promptly notify the Court in writing of any change of address by filing a written Notice of Change of Address with the Clerk of the Court. Failure to provide updated address information may result in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or follow court order under Fed. R. Civ. 41(b). (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver on 3/22/2023) (chmb)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis with certificate of trust account filed by Mark Andrew Velasco. (acm) |
| Filing 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mark Andrew Velasco. 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. (acm) |
| Filing 2 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (acm) |
| Filing 1 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Toliver (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 Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (acm) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1, 2. Tue Mar 21 12:22:11 CDT 2023 (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
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.
