Senrick Wilkerson v. Huntsville Institutional Parole Office
This text of Senrick Wilkerson v. Huntsville Institutional Parole Office (Senrick Wilkerson v. Huntsville Institutional Parole Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00119-CV
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant v.
HUNTSVILLE INSTITUTIONAL PAROLE OFFICE, ET AL, Appellees
From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 1527660
ORDER
Senrick Wilkerson’s affidavit of indigence, Motion for Reporter’s Record, and
Motion to be Assigned Counsel, each filed on April 27, 2016 did not contain a proper
proof of service as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. By letter dated
April 29, 2016, the Clerk of this Court warned Wilkerson that the failure to provide a
proper proof of service for each document within 14 days from the date of the letter
would result in the Court striking the affidavit of indigence, Motion for Reporter’s Record, and Motion to be Assigned Counsel. More than 14 days have passed and
Wilkerson has not provided the Court with proper proof of service for each document.
Accordingly, Wilkerson’s affidavit of indigence, Motion for Reporter’s Record,
and Motion to be Assigned Counsel are stricken.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed June 2, 2016
Wilkerson v. Huntsville Institutional Parole Office Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Senrick Wilkerson v. Huntsville Institutional Parole Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senrick-wilkerson-v-huntsville-institutional-parole-office-texapp-2016.