BERRY v. WARDEN

BERRY v. WARDEN

Petitioner:	JOHN BERRY
Respondent:	WARDEN
Case Number:	1:2018cv00959
Filed:	March 26, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Presiding Judge:	Doris L. Pryor
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
November 13, 2018	Filing 8 Order Dismissing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - Petitioner John Berry was convicted of attempted murder in an Indiana state court. He is currently serving a forty-year sentence for this crime. Mr. B erry now seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent argues that the petition must be denied because it is time-barred. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr. Berry's petition for a writ of habeas cor pus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Mr. Berry has encountered the hurdle produced by the one-year statute of limitations. He has not shown the ex istence of circumstances permitting him to overcome this hurdle, and hence is not entitled to the relief he seeks. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue. Ru le 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the district courts to "issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant," and "[i]f the court issues a certificate, the co urt must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2)." Pursuant to § 2253(c)(2), the Court finds that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable "whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (See Entry). Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/13/2018.(APD)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 13, 2018

Filing 8 Order Dismissing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - Petitioner John Berry was convicted of attempted murder in an Indiana state court. He is currently serving a forty-year sentence for this crime. Mr. B erry now seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent argues that the petition must be denied because it is time-barred. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr. Berry's petition for a writ of habeas cor pus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Mr. Berry has encountered the hurdle produced by the one-year statute of limitations. He has not shown the ex istence of circumstances permitting him to overcome this hurdle, and hence is not entitled to the relief he seeks. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue. Ru le 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the district courts to "issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant," and "[i]f the court issues a certificate, the co urt must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2)." Pursuant to § 2253(c)(2), the Court finds that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable "whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (See Entry). Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/13/2018.(APD)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BERRY v. WARDEN
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: JOHN BERRY
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: WARDEN
Represented By:	Henry A. Flores, Jr.
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?