Hawes v. Lumpkin
| Richard Vonzell Hawes |
| Warden FNU Almonza and Bobby Lumpkin |
| 5:2022cv01219 |
| November 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Fred Biery |
| 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 December 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Richard Vonzell Hawes. (nm) |
| Copy of DE #3 and blank IFP form mailed to plaintiff. (nm) |
Filing 3
DEFICIENCY ORDER--It is therefore ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order, petitioner must submit to the Court either the required filing fee of $5.00 or a completed application to proceed IFP. If the petitioner submits an IFP application, it must include a current institutional trust fund account statement showing deposits and balances to petitioners institutional account for the previous six months. Signed by Judge Fred Biery. (nm)
|
| Filing 2 Case Opening Letter to Richard Vonzell Hawes. (bt) |
| Filing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Richard Vonzell Hawes. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Copy of envelope)(bt) |
| If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Farrer. (bt) |
| THIS CASE HAS BEEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE FRED BIERY. (bt) |
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
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.
