Humphrey v. Lumpkin
Brison Keith Humphrey |
Bobby Lumpkin |
4:2023cv00033 |
September 14, 2023 |
US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
David Counts |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 Corrected Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Brison Keith Humphrey.(ab1) |
Mailed Mr. Humphrey's another AO 241 28 USC 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Form he stated he never received the first copy. (ab1) |
Mailed Mr. Humphrey's a AO 241 28 USC 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Form (ab1) |
Filing 9 Petitioners AFFIDAVIT in Support of #7 Order on Motion to Transfer Case, by Brison Keith Humphrey. (ab1) |
Filing 8 ORDER DISMISSING #3 Motion to Amend Without Prejudice as the Court hasno idea what he is trying to amend with. When filing a Motion to Amend in the future, Petitioner is advised to attach any amendment along with to his Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge David Counts. (ab1) |
Filing 7 ORDER DENYING #4 Motion to Transfer Case. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that every state action carrying adverseconsequences for prison inmates automatically activates a due process right. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 (1976). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer Prisonsmust be DENIED. [docket number 4]. Signed by Judge David Counts. (ab1) |
Filing 6 ORDER GRANTING #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court FILE, without prepayment of the filing fee, Petitioners Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Signed by Judge David Counts. (ab1) |
Filing 5 ORDER to Submit Motion on Proper Form re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Brison Keith Humphrey. It is ORDERED that Petitioner must file this complaint on the proper paperwork in order to proceed on this claim. Further, Petitioner is ADVISED that failure to submit this claim on the proper form, with all sections completed legibly, on or before Wednesday, October 18, 2023, will result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. Fed.R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Judge David Counts. (ab1) |
Filing 4 MOTION to Transfer to regular facility by Brison Keith Humphrey. (ab1) |
Filing 3 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Brison Keith Humphrey. (ab1) |
Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Brison Keith Humphrey. (ab1) |
Filing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 DUE), filed by Brison Keith Humphrey. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(ab1) |
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 Western 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: Humphrey v. Lumpkin | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: Brison Keith Humphrey | |
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: Bobby Lumpkin | |
Represented By: | Edward L. Marshall |
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.