Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-728 - Robertson v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-728 - Robertson v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID
June 13, 2013
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order re: 8 MOTION to Seal and Consider Application for Funding Ex parte (Opposed), 10 MOTION to Seal and Consider Application for Funding Ex parte (Opposed). The court finds that petitioner has not made a proper showing concerning the need for confidentiality. Petitioner may either supplement his motions for leave to proceed ex parte with the information listed above within 21 days of this order, or he may serve the applications upon respondent that were previously tendered ex parte. Respondent is allowed 14 days from the date that any supplemented motion for leave to proceed ex parte or re-filed application is filed to make his response. Extensions of time may be granted for good cause shown. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 6/13/2013) (cea)
August 28, 2013
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 MOTION for Reconsideration. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 8/28/2013) (tln)
September 30, 2013
PDF | More
dified to grant Respondent access per Doc 56 on 9/22/2014 (gmg). Ex Parte Memorandum Opinion and Order: Robertson's amended ex parte application for authorization to obtain the services of a mitigation investigator (docket entry 17) is DENIED. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 9/30/2013) (cea) Mo
March 25, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 53,60 Motion for funding a mitigation investigator; denying 65 Motion to Strike; granting 66 Joint motion to unseal certain records. and the clerk is DIRECTED to REMOVE THE SEAL on docket entries 25, 33, 53, 53-1, 53-2, 60, 64 and 65. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 3/25/2015) (ykp) Modified on 3/25/2015 (ykp). Modified on 4/19/2017 to remove restricted designation pursuant to order 75 (gr).
March 30, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner Mark Robertson's 47 application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and after considering the record in this case, the court DENIES Robertson a certificate of appealability because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If Robertson files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 3/30/2017) (twd)