Duvall v. Crawford
| John C. Duvall |
| Larry Crawford |
| 4:2007cv01232 |
| July 9, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| E. Richard Webber |
| 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
83
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis on appeal [#81] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability [#82] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Or der, either pay the $455 appellate filing fee or file a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file any future documents or pleadings in connection with his appeal directly with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 9/29/09. (RJD)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 10/27/08. (RJD)
|
|
Filing
56
JUDGMENT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is DENIED. IT IS FURTEHR ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on September 16, 2008. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's "pro se motion for fair notice and opportuntity" 21 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's "motion for judicial notice re: Missouri's fi rmly established, regularly followed, and readily ascertainable rule that claims based upon newly discovered evidence are not cognizable in post-conviction proceedings" 22 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner' ;s "motion to invoke judicial estoppel re: Brady claims" 23 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for extension of time 24 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's reply to respondent's answer shall be filed no later than 5/29/08.. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 2/1/08. (BAK)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Duvall v. Crawford | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: John C. Duvall | |
| 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: Larry Crawford | |
| Represented By: | Stephen D. Hawke |
| 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.
