Matthews v. Purkett
Case Number: 4:2006cv00925
Filed: June 14, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
Presiding Judge: Carol E. Jackson
Presiding Judge: Thomas C. Mummert
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Ecclesiastes M.D. Matthews for a writ of habeas corpus [#2] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is issued solely on petitioners claims of ineffective assi stance of trial and appellate counsel as they relate to the issue of change of venue under Rule 32.03. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on all other grounds for relief, petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to those claims. See Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997).. Signed by Honorable Carol E. Jackson on 9/14/09. (KMS)
February 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER granting 17 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ronald S. Ribaudo terminated. Signed by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 2/11/09. (RJD)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Matthews v. Purkett
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?