Cole v. State of Texas Inc et al
Petitioner: Brian Cole
Respondent: State of Texas Inc and Tarrant County Inc
Case Number: 4:2025cv00045
Filed: January 21, 2025
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Presiding Judge: Reed C O'Connor
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Pet/Habeas Corpus: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 7, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 9 FINAL JUDGMENT: In accordance with the Court's order of dismissal entered this day, it is the final judgment of the Court that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/7/2025) (jnp)
March 7, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER: Cole's petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. However, given the fact that Cole has paid for this action, if he files either a complete 2241 petition on the proper form or response to the Court's construction of his claims within the next, the Court will sua sponte reopen this case and proceed with adjudicating her claims. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/7/2025) (jnp)
March 7, 2025 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:8, 9. Fri Mar 7 15:51:55 CST 2025 (crt)
January 30, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER: Because Cole's petition, when liberally construed, challenges the legality of his indictment and pending criminal charges, the Court, in accordance with Russell, CONSTRUES it as seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. If Cole wants to proceed with his claims under 2241, he must do the following by March 3, 2025: (1) either pay the $5 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) file his 2241 petition on the proper form. If Cole objects to the Court's construction of his claims, he must, by March 3, file a response to this order explaining why his claims should not proceed under 2241. If Cole does not fully comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice without further notice for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Cole's pending #4 , #5 motions for the Court to hold the 485th Judicial District Court in contempt and hold a hearing on his contempt motion are DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the clerk of Court to change the Nature of Suit Code for this action to 530. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 1/30/2025) (jnp)
January 30, 2025 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:7. Thu Jan 30 16:35:55 CST 2025 (crt)
January 29, 2025 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:6. Wed Jan 29 10:49:29 CST 2025 (crt)
January 27, 2025 Filing 6 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. (jnp)
January 27, 2025 ***Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr no longer assigned to case per SA and MJ Chambers. (jnp)
January 22, 2025 Filing 5 MOTION for Hearing re #4 MOTION for Contempt filed by Brian Cole (jnp)
January 22, 2025 Filing 4 MOTION for Contempt filed by Brian Cole (jnp)
January 21, 2025 Filing 3 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party (jnp)
January 21, 2025 Filing 2 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set (see Special Order 3). Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. preliminarily assigned. 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. (jnp)
January 21, 2025 Filing 1 Petition For Writ of Mandamus filed by Brian Cole. (jnp)
January 21, 2025 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:2, 3. Tue Jan 21 15:02:09 CST 2025 (crt)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Cole v. State of Texas Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Brian Cole
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: State of Texas Inc
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Tarrant County Inc
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 [ 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?