Patterson v. Clarke
| Richard A. Patterson |
| Harold W. Clarke and Chadwick Dotson |
| 2:2023cv00606 |
| November 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Mark S Davis |
| Douglas E Miller |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 19, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Submission by Petitioner. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jmey, ) |
| Filing 13 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Receipt as to #11 Order of Prisoner Service (2254), filed by Chadwick Dotson. (Sessoms, Stacie) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacie Ann Sessoms on behalf of Chadwick Dotson (Sessoms, Stacie) |
Filing 11
ORDER of Service upon respondents. The Respondent is ORDERED to file within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order an answer to the petition conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, together with the attachments specified in Rule 5. #10 Motion for Extension is TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 1/11/2024. Copies mailed 1/12/2024.(jmey, )
|
| MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: #10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #7 Order. (jmey, ) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #7 Order by Richard A. Patterson. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jmey, ) |
| Filing 9 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 200003172. (jmey, ) |
| Filing 8 Amendment to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Richard A. Patterson. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jmey, ) Modified on 12/20/2023 to correct filed on date. (jmey, ) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER. It is DETERMINED that petitioner has access to sufficient assets to pay a filing fee of $5.00, and it is ORDERED that petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees and costs is DENIED pending receipt of information specified below. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of this Order the petitioner must accomplish one of the following actions: 1. Remit $5.00 as a filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. 2. Request an extension of time in which to pay the filing fee. 3. Demonstrate that he lacks the ability to pay the $5.00 filing fee, or demonstrate other factors which would justify failure to pay a filing fee. The petition shall remain CONDITIONALLY FILED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the petitioner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 12/14/2023. Copies mailed 12/14/2023.(jmey, )
|
| Filing 6 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement. (jmey, ) |
| Filing 5 Submission by Petitioner. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jmey, ) |
| Filing 4 Letter to Nottoway Correctional Center. (jmey, ) |
| Filing 3 REFERRAL ORDER. It is ORDERED that this matter is hereby REFERRED to UnitedStates Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller for further proceedings. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Petitioner. Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 11/28/2023. Copies mailed 11/28/2023.(jmey, ) |
| Filing 2 Acknowledgment of Receipt. (jmey, ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION, Conditionally (SUBJECT TO DEFECT) filed for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 0.00.), filed by Richard A. Patterson. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jmey, ) Modified on 11/27/2023 to edit docket text. (jmey, ) |
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
