In Re: Dickson

Fifth Circuit

In Re: Dickson

225 F. App'x 310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2007

Docket07-10487

StatusUnpublished

This text of 225 F. App'x 310 (In Re: Dickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Dickson, 225 F. App'x 310 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

It is ORDERED that the instant manner-of-execution challenge be TRANSFERRED back to the Northern District of Texas to be decided pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hill v. McDonough, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006). It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall immediately transmit a true copy of this order to the Northern District of Texas and notify all parties of this action.

In doing so, we note our concern about this suit being filed so late and question whether entertaining the suit is consistent with our cases. See Neville v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 221, 222 (5th Cir.2006); Reese v. Livingston, 453 F.3d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2006); White v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 572, 574 (5th Cir.2005); Harris v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 414 (5th Cir.2004).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

It is ORDERED that the instant manner-of-execution challenge be TRANSFERRED back to the Northern District of Texas to be decided pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hill v. McDonough, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006). It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall immediately transmit a true copy of this order to the Northern District of Texas and notify all parties of this action.

In doing so, we note our concern about this suit being filed so late and question whether entertaining the suit is consistent with our cases. See Neville v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 221, 222 (5th Cir.2006); Reese v. Livingston, 453 F.3d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2006); White v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 572, 574 (5th Cir.2005); Harris v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 414 (5th Cir.2004).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 F. App'x 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dickson-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack