Sinchak v. Strange

Sinchak v. Strange

Plaintiff:	Anthony Sinchak
Defendant:	Strange
Case Number:	3:2000cv00034
Filed:	January 7, 2000
Court:	U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	Hartford
Presiding Judge:	William I. Garfinkel
Presiding Judge:	Stefan R. Underhill
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
August 29, 2017	Filing 92 ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. The STAY imposed on July 28, 2003, Doc. No. 46 , is LIFTED. Sinchak's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 24 , is DISMISSED without prejudice. Sinchak may move to reopen the case no more than 30 days after he fully exhausts his available state court remedies with respect to all grounds he seeks to raise in this action. The motion to reopen must be accompanied by a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sinchak mu st include in that petition all grounds on which he seeks relief, and shall attach copies of any state court decisions documenting the exhaustion of those grounds.The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 08/29/2017. (Jamieson, K)
July 26, 2016	Filing 89 ORDER denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration. To the extent that it is necessary, the petitioner may make any tolling arguments with regard to the claims in his petition after he has completed the exhaustion of state remedies with respect to the claims in his current state habeas petition. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/26/2016. (Pollack, R.)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 29, 2017

Filing 92 ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. The STAY imposed on July 28, 2003, Doc. No. 46 , is LIFTED. Sinchak's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 24 , is DISMISSED without prejudice. Sinchak may move to reopen the case no more than 30 days after he fully exhausts his available state court remedies with respect to all grounds he seeks to raise in this action. The motion to reopen must be accompanied by a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sinchak mu st include in that petition all grounds on which he seeks relief, and shall attach copies of any state court decisions documenting the exhaustion of those grounds.The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 08/29/2017. (Jamieson, K)

July 26, 2016

Filing 89 ORDER denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration. To the extent that it is necessary, the petitioner may make any tolling arguments with regard to the claims in his petition after he has completed the exhaustion of state remedies with respect to the claims in his current state habeas petition. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/26/2016. (Pollack, R.)

Access additional case information on PACER

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

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

Search for this case: Sinchak v. Strange
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Anthony Sinchak
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 ]
Defendant: Strange
Represented By:	James A. Killen
Represented By:	Carolyn K. Longstreth
Represented By:	Michael E. O'Hare
Represented By:	JoAnne Sulik
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?