Abrams v. Commissioner of Corrections

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit Connecticut District Court Abrams v. Commissioner of Corrections

Abrams v. Commissioner of Corrections

Petitioner:	David A. Abrams
Respondent:	Commissioner of Corrections
Case Number:	3:2017cv01732
Filed:	October 13, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	New London
Presiding Judge:	Michael P. Shea
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
February 25, 2019	Filing 31 ORDER. As set forth in the attached, the Respondents 19 Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED on the ground that the petition contains both unexhausted and exhausted claims. The 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus i s DISMISSED without prejudice. The petitioner may file a new federal habeas petition after he has exhausted his available state court remedies as to all of the sub-claims in the four grounds set forth in this petition.The petitioner is inform ed that he also has the option of proceeding only as to the exhausted sub-claims in each ground of the petition. If so, he must file a motion to reopen within 30 days seeking: (1) to proceed as to the exhausted sub-claims in each ground of the petit ion and (2) to withdraw all of the unexhausted sub-claims. The motion must clearly identify each sub-claim that the petitioner claims has been fully exhausted and explain how each sub-claim was exhausted in state court. The petitioner is cautioned, however, that if he proceeds only as to the exhausted sub-claims, with the intention of presenting the unexhausted sub-claims to this court after they have been exhausted, he will run the risk that any such subsequent petition will not be considered by this court because it would constitute a second or successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).The court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the petitioner has failed to exhaust all available state court remedies as to each ground of the petition. Thus, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (holding that, when the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds , a certificate of appealability should issue if jurists of reason would find debatable the correctness of the district courts ruling).The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/25/2019. (Guevremont, Nathan)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 25, 2019

Filing 31 ORDER. As set forth in the attached, the Respondents 19 Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED on the ground that the petition contains both unexhausted and exhausted claims. The 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus i s DISMISSED without prejudice. The petitioner may file a new federal habeas petition after he has exhausted his available state court remedies as to all of the sub-claims in the four grounds set forth in this petition.The petitioner is inform ed that he also has the option of proceeding only as to the exhausted sub-claims in each ground of the petition. If so, he must file a motion to reopen within 30 days seeking: (1) to proceed as to the exhausted sub-claims in each ground of the petit ion and (2) to withdraw all of the unexhausted sub-claims. The motion must clearly identify each sub-claim that the petitioner claims has been fully exhausted and explain how each sub-claim was exhausted in state court. The petitioner is cautioned, however, that if he proceeds only as to the exhausted sub-claims, with the intention of presenting the unexhausted sub-claims to this court after they have been exhausted, he will run the risk that any such subsequent petition will not be considered by this court because it would constitute a second or successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).The court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the petitioner has failed to exhaust all available state court remedies as to each ground of the petition. Thus, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (holding that, when the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds , a certificate of appealability should issue if jurists of reason would find debatable the correctness of the district courts ruling).The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/25/2019. (Guevremont, Nathan)

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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Abrams v. Commissioner of Corrections
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: David A. Abrams
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: Commissioner of Corrections
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?