Caruso v. Gaffney

Caruso v. Gaffney

Petitioner:	Steven Caruso
Respondent:	Erin Gaffney
Case Number:	1:2017cv11822
Filed:	September 22, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office:	Boston Office
County:	Middlesex
Presiding Judge:	Denise J. Casper
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
March 6, 2019	Filing 24 Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Court DENIES Caruso's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. D. 1. Caruso may receive a certificate of appealability only if he "has made a substantial showing of the denia l of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability is appropriate when "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claim debatable or wrong." Mil lerEl, 537 U.S. at 338 (internal quotations omitted). Based upon the analysis of the record and the applicable law in this Memorandum and Order, the Court does not, at this juncture, conclude that reasonable jurists would find its conclusion, de nying the Petition both on procedural and substantive grounds, debatable or wrong. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to issue a certificate of appealability, but will give Caruso until March 28, 2019 to file a memorandum, if he seeks to address the issue of whether a certificate of appealability is warranted as to any of the grounds in the Petition.(Hourihan, Lisa)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 6, 2019

Filing 24 Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Court DENIES Caruso's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. D. 1. Caruso may receive a certificate of appealability only if he "has made a substantial showing of the denia l of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability is appropriate when "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claim debatable or wrong." Mil lerEl, 537 U.S. at 338 (internal quotations omitted). Based upon the analysis of the record and the applicable law in this Memorandum and Order, the Court does not, at this juncture, conclude that reasonable jurists would find its conclusion, de nying the Petition both on procedural and substantive grounds, debatable or wrong. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to issue a certificate of appealability, but will give Caruso until March 28, 2019 to file a memorandum, if he seeks to address the issue of whether a certificate of appealability is warranted as to any of the grounds in the Petition.(Hourihan, Lisa)

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Caruso v. Gaffney
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Steven Caruso
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: Erin Gaffney
Represented By:	Matthew P. Landry
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?