Hollis v. Lamb

Hollis v. Lamb

Petitioner:	Marte Hollis
Respondent:	Nicholas Lamb
Case Number:	1:2015cv07297
Filed:	August 19, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Will
Presiding Judge:	Matthew F. Kennelly
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
December 27, 2016	Filing 41 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 12/27/2016. Mailed notice (aee, )
October 25, 2016	Filing 32 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 10/25/2016: For the reasons stated, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment denying Hollis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also declines to iss ue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), because the correctness of the court's procedural default rulings against Hollis are not debatable, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000), and, on the claims t he Court denied on the merits, there is nothing to suggest that the merits are debatable, capable of different resolution, or deserving of further consideration. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); Porter v. Gramley, 121 F.3d 1308,1312 (7th Cir. 1997). Mailed notice. (pjg, )

Date Filed

Document Text

December 27, 2016

Filing 41 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 12/27/2016. Mailed notice (aee, )

October 25, 2016

Filing 32 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 10/25/2016: For the reasons stated, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment denying Hollis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also declines to iss ue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), because the correctness of the court's procedural default rulings against Hollis are not debatable, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000), and, on the claims t he Court denied on the merits, there is nothing to suggest that the merits are debatable, capable of different resolution, or deserving of further consideration. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); Porter v. Gramley, 121 F.3d 1308,1312 (7th Cir. 1997). Mailed notice. (pjg, )

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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hollis v. Lamb
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Marte Hollis
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: Nicholas Lamb
Represented By:	Drew Meyer
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?