Ard v. Cassady

Ard v. Cassady

Petitioner:	Johnny Ray Ard
Respondent:	Jay Cassady
Case Number:	4:2015cv00519
Filed:	March 24, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	Within US but Outside District
Presiding Judge:	Henry Edward Autrey
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 27, 2015	Filing 8 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: To the extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his original petition, those claims must be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(1). To the extent that petitioner seeks to bring new cl aims for habeas relief, petitioner must obtain leave from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring those claims in this Court. 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not been granted leave to file a succes sive habeas petition in this Court. As a result, the petition is dismissed. Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition is successive. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 03/27/2015. (CLK)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 27, 2015

Filing 8 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: To the extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his original petition, those claims must be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(1). To the extent that petitioner seeks to bring new cl aims for habeas relief, petitioner must obtain leave from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring those claims in this Court. 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not been granted leave to file a succes sive habeas petition in this Court. As a result, the petition is dismissed. Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition is successive. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 03/27/2015. (CLK)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ard v. Cassady
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Johnny Ray Ard
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Jay Cassady
Represented By:	Stephen D. Hawke
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?