Randy Halprin v. Lorie Davis, Director

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Randy Halprin v. Lorie Davis, Director. Read the opinion of the Court — 911 F.3d 247
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided September 23, 2019·No. 19-70017·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-70016 Document: 00515128093 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 19-70016 FILED September 23, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Consolidated with 19-70017 Clerk

RANDY ETHAN HALPRIN,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13-CV-1535 USDC No. 3:19-CV-1203

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Randy Halprin has filed an appeal of the district court’s transfer to this court of his application for habeas relief. We have jurisdiction over such an appeal. Bradford v. Tamez, 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011). For the reasons

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 19-70016 Document: 00515128093 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2019

No. 19-70016 c/w No. 19-70017

set forth in our opinion on Halprin’s petition for authorization to file a successive habeas application, In re Halprin, Case No. 19-10960 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019), we conclude that the district court properly transferred the petition to our court. That decision is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

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

Randy Halprin v. Lorie Davis, Director, (5th Cir. 2019).

Randy Halprin v. Lorie Davis, Director (Randy Halprin v. Lorie Davis, Director) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re: Cecil Bradford
660 F.3d 226 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)