Roddy v. Cain et al
| Lucas J. Roddy |
| Burl Cain and James D. Caldwell, Jr. |
| 3:2010cv00800 |
| November 24, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana |
| Baton Rouge Office |
| Ralph E. Tyson |
| Christine Noland |
| 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
40
RULING and ORDER adopting 37 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Petitioner Lucas J. Roddy's two § 2254 Petitions (Civil Action No. 10-00800-BAJ-RLB, Doc. 1; Civil Action No. 11-00730-BAJRLB, Doc. 1) are both DENIED. C ertificates of appealability are GRANTED for the instant Petitions because Petitioner has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/19/2015. (SMG)
|
|
Filing
20
RULING Adopting 16 Report and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The portion of petitioners claim asserted in his Supplemental Memorandum of Law (R. Doc. 10) relating to the state trial courts denial of post-conviction DNA testing based upon newly discovered evidence should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as unexhausted and that his remaining exhausted claims contained in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Supplemental Memorandum will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely-filed. Signed by Judge Frank J. Polozola on 07/14/2011. (NLT)
|
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 Louisiana Middle 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.
