EADS v. USA
||CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN EADS
||July 14, 2014
||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
||Debra McVicker Lynch
||Tanya Walton Pratt
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 11, 2017
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS. ORDER denying as moot 34 Motion for order of transcript; denying 26 Motion to supplement; denying 28 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (USCA #17-2193). (S.O.). Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/11/2017. (MAC)
|May 17, 2017
ENTRY DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the effort of Christopher Eads to show otherwise through his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2255 fails. No evidentiary hearing is warranted. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Dkt. 1) is DENIED and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in the underlying criminal action, Case No. 1:11-cr-239-TWP-KPF. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Eads has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/17/2017.(JLS)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?