Kowalyshyn v. Commissioner of Correction et al
| Michael Kowalyshyn |
| Commissioner of Correction and Dannel P. Malloy |
| 3:2015cv00864 |
| June 4, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
10
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is DENIED without prejudice for failure to identify specific grounds for relief. The motion to appoint counsel (Doc. #3) is DENIED for failure to identify substantial claims that would warrant appointment of counsel. Any amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion to appoint counsel must be filed within thirty days on or before Ja nuary 29, 2016. If petitioner chooses not to file an amended petition within the time specified, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for respondents and close this case. The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this ruling and an amended section 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus form, a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1), and the attachments to his original petition (Docs. # 1-1 through 1-12). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/30/2015.(Oakes, A.)
|
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
