Buckley v. Norris

Plaintiff: Gyronne Buckley
Defendant: Larry Norris
Case Number: 5:2008cv00157
Filed: May 28, 2008
Court: Arkansas Eastern District Court
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: J. Leon Holmes
Referring Judge: J. Thomas Ray
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
November 16, 2010 29 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER that Petitioner's 27 MOTION for Retroactive Appointment of Counsel and 28 MOTION to Lift Stay and Dismiss this habeas petition are GRANTED; the Court will enter a CJA Form 20 appointing Mr. Sullivan nunc pro tunc and will defer ruling on his request for compensation until he submits a timely and properly completed application. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 11/16/10. (vjt)
February 1, 2010 25 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER adopting 23 Report and Recommendations in their entirety, except that the unexhausted Brady claim will not be dismissed as this action will be stayed to give Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust that claim; Petitioner's 20 Motion for Leave to Supplement his Federal Habeas Petition is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; this action will be STAYED on the condition that Petitioner seeks relief on his unexhausted claim with the Supreme Court of Arkansas within 30 days of the date of this Order; upon receipt of Petitioner's notice that his petition is filed in state court this action will be stayed and administratively terminated; Petitioner must file a motion with this Court to lift the stay within 30 days of a final decision by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 2/1/10.(vjt)
January 7, 2010 23 Opinion or Order of the Court PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending the Court grant Petitonier's Motion for Leave to Supplement his Federal Habeas Petition to the extent that he is allowed to supplement his § 2254 petition to include arguments relat ed to the newly discovered videotape, but denies, at this time, all other requests for relief set forth in the Motion; recommending the unexhausted Brady claim be dismissed; and recommending this action be stayed on two conditions: (a) Petitioner mus t affirmatively seek relief on his unexhausted claim with the Arkansas Supreme within 30 days of the date of this Order; and (b) Within 30 days of a final decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court on Petitioners petition for a writ of error coram nobis, Petitioner must request this Court to lift the stay so that this action can proceed. Objections to R&R due no later than 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 1/7/10. (hph)

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 Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Buckley v. Norris
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gyronne Buckley
Represented By: J. Thomas Sullivan
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Larry Norris
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 [ 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?