Cockrell v. Minor

Cockrell v. Minor

Petitioner:	Duron Cockrell
Respondent:	Dean Minor
Case Number:	4:2017cv01786
Filed:	June 21, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
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
April 9, 2019	Filing 36 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons set forth above, the petition of Duron Cockrell for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner has 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 4/9/19. (JAB)
December 13, 2017	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND APPOINT EXPERT WITNESSES: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion to compel discovery (Doc. 21 ) is DENIED in part without prejudice. It is granted insofar as the State must produc e a copy to petitioner of the exhibits referenced in its response. (Docs. 18 , 23 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners motion for the appointment of experts (Doc. 22 ) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will reconsider petitioners motions if, following its review of the record in this matter, it determines that an evidentiary hearing or discovery is necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 12/13/2017. (CLO)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 9, 2019

Filing 36 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons set forth above, the petition of Duron Cockrell for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner has 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 4/9/19. (JAB)

December 13, 2017

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND APPOINT EXPERT WITNESSES: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion to compel discovery (Doc. 21 ) is DENIED in part without prejudice. It is granted insofar as the State must produc e a copy to petitioner of the exhibits referenced in its response. (Docs. 18 , 23 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners motion for the appointment of experts (Doc. 22 ) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will reconsider petitioners motions if, following its review of the record in this matter, it determines that an evidentiary hearing or discovery is necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 12/13/2017. (CLO)

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: Cockrell v. Minor
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Duron Cockrell
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: Dean Minor
Represented By:	Stephen D. Hawke(Designation State / Local Government)
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?