MORROW v. MCNEIL

Filing 9

ORDER re 7 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by SUSAN A MORROW - Petitioner shall submit two identical copies of amended petition and exhibits within thirty (30) days. This case number shall be written on the copies. - - Service Copies due by 9/7/2009. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MILES DAVIS on August 7, 2009. (cbj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION SUSAN A. MORROW, Petitioner, vs. 5:09cv225/SPM/MD W ALTER MCNEIL, Respondent. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER Petitioner commenced this action on June 27, 2009 by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Attached to the 6-page petition was a supporting memorandum (titled "supplement") and exhibits. (Doc. 1). On July 15, 2009 the court entered an order requiring petitioner to submit two service copies of her petition and attachments. (Doc. 5). In response, petitioner filed a single, newly executed, 14-page petition with different exhibits and no supporting memorandum. This petition has been docketed as an amended petition. (Doc. 7). Before the court can order service of the amended petition, petitioner must submit two service copies of the amended petition and exhibits (one copy for the respondent and one for the Attorney General of the State of Florida). The service copies must be identical to the amended petition and exhibits. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Petitioner shall, within thirty (30) days of the docketing date of this order, submit two identical copies of her amended petition and exhibits. This case number shall be written on the copies. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2009. /s/ Miles Davis MILES DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?