TOLLIVER v. SUPERINTENDENT
| THEOTIS TOLLIVER |
| SUPERINTENDENT |
| WVCF (Court Use Only) |
| 2:2015cv00287 |
| September 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
24
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the petition of Theotis Tolliver for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed with prejudi ce. In addition, the court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Tolliver has encountered the hurdles produced by the 1-year statute of limitations and the doctrine of procedural default. His petition for writ of habeas corp us was filed long after the statute of limitations had expired. He has not shown the existence 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 without a decision being made as to the merits of his claims. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/7/2016.(RSF)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
