Lindsay v. Connecticut

Lindsay v. Connecticut

Petitioner:	Kevin Lindsay
Respondent:	State of Connecticut
Case Number:	3:2018cv00012
Filed:	January 2, 2018
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
October 13, 2021	Filing 27 ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, motions, (ECF Nos. 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ), are DENIED with prejudice. The petitioner is not precluded from filing a NEW federal habeas petition after he has fully exhausted his state court remedies as to each claim he seeks to assert in that petition.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/13/2021. (Wong, Qing Wai)
April 13, 2018	Filing 11 ORDER. As discussed in the attached, The 8 Motion to Amend, which seeks to reopen this action and leave to file an amended petition is DENIED without prejudice. The 9 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, is DISMISSED without prejudice and the 10 "Motions to Argument for Reconsideration Requesting an Evidentiary Hearing," is DENIED in all respects.Any new motion to reopen must be filed within twenty days of the date of this order and be accompanied by a second amen ded petition filed on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 court form.The petitioner must answer all questions on the habeas petition form. In the spaces in the CLAIMS section of the form, the petitioner should separately include each ground on which he s eeks to proceed and the facts in support of each ground. The court's section 2254 amended habeas form includes space for four grounds for relief. If the petitioner seeks to raise more than four grounds for relief, he must attach separate pages t o the habeas form listing each additional ground separately and also indicate the facts in support of each ground. In addition, for each ground in the amended petition, the petitioner must indicate separately whether he exhausted that ground by raisi ng it on direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate and Connecticut Supreme Courts, or by raising it in a collateral proceeding, either in a motion or a state habeas petition, and on appeal to the Connecticut Appellate and Connecticut Supreme Courts, from the decision in the collateral proceeding. The Clerk is directed to send the petitioner a copy of this Ruling and Order and an Amended Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition form. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/13/2018. (Taykhman, N.)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 13, 2021

Filing 27 ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, motions, (ECF Nos. 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ), are DENIED with prejudice. The petitioner is not precluded from filing a NEW federal habeas petition after he has fully exhausted his state court remedies as to each claim he seeks to assert in that petition.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/13/2021. (Wong, Qing Wai)

April 13, 2018

Filing 11 ORDER. As discussed in the attached, The 8 Motion to Amend, which seeks to reopen this action and leave to file an amended petition is DENIED without prejudice. The 9 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, is DISMISSED without prejudice and the 10 "Motions to Argument for Reconsideration Requesting an Evidentiary Hearing," is DENIED in all respects.Any new motion to reopen must be filed within twenty days of the date of this order and be accompanied by a second amen ded petition filed on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 court form.The petitioner must answer all questions on the habeas petition form. In the spaces in the CLAIMS section of the form, the petitioner should separately include each ground on which he s eeks to proceed and the facts in support of each ground. The court's section 2254 amended habeas form includes space for four grounds for relief. If the petitioner seeks to raise more than four grounds for relief, he must attach separate pages t o the habeas form listing each additional ground separately and also indicate the facts in support of each ground. In addition, for each ground in the amended petition, the petitioner must indicate separately whether he exhausted that ground by raisi ng it on direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate and Connecticut Supreme Courts, or by raising it in a collateral proceeding, either in a motion or a state habeas petition, and on appeal to the Connecticut Appellate and Connecticut Supreme Courts, from the decision in the collateral proceeding. The Clerk is directed to send the petitioner a copy of this Ruling and Order and an Amended Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition form. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/13/2018. (Taykhman, N.)

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: Lindsay v. Connecticut
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Kevin Lindsay
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: State of Connecticut
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?