Immekus v. Cassady

Immekus v. Cassady

Petitioner:	Mark Edward Immekus
Respondent:	Jay Cassady
Case Number:	4:2014cv00404
Filed:	March 3, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	Cole
Presiding Judge:	David D. Noce
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
January 11, 2017	Filing 19 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pro se motion of petitioner for a certificateof appealability (ECF No. 16 ) is denied.However, because his appeal appears to be taken in good faith,IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of petition er for leave to continueto proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 17 ) is sustained. Fed. R. App. P. 24 (a) (3). As petitioner does not appear to have any pending state cases, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that his motion to stay and to order respondent to show cause (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 1/11/17. (JAB) (cc:USCA)
November 28, 2016	Filing 13 MEMORANDUM : For the reasons stated above, the petition of Mark Immekus for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner made no substantial showing that he was deprived of a constitutional right. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 11/28/16. (KKS)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 11, 2017

Filing 19 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pro se motion of petitioner for a certificateof appealability (ECF No. 16 ) is denied.However, because his appeal appears to be taken in good faith,IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of petition er for leave to continueto proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 17 ) is sustained. Fed. R. App. P. 24 (a) (3). As petitioner does not appear to have any pending state cases, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that his motion to stay and to order respondent to show cause (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 1/11/17. (JAB) (cc:USCA)

November 28, 2016

Filing 13 MEMORANDUM : For the reasons stated above, the petition of Mark Immekus for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner made no substantial showing that he was deprived of a constitutional right. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 11/28/16. (KKS)

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: Immekus v. Cassady
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Mark Edward Immekus
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: Jay Cassady
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.

Why Is My Information Online?