Johnson v. Conway

Johnson v. Conway

Petitioner:	Joseph Johnson
Respondent:	James Conway
Case Number:	1:2008cv03302
Filed:	August 6, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County:	Kings
Presiding Judge:	Dora Lizette Irizarry
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

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
October 6, 2010	Filing 9 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED in its entirety. Petitioner is fur ther denied a certificate of appealability as he fails to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2); see FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Lucia dore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Memorandum and Order to pro se plaintiff and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 10/6/2010. (Irizarry, Dora)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 6, 2010

Filing 9 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED in its entirety. Petitioner is fur ther denied a certificate of appealability as he fails to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2); see FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Lucia dore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Memorandum and Order to pro se plaintiff and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 10/6/2010. (Irizarry, Dora)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Johnson v. Conway
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Joseph Johnson
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: James Conway
Represented By:	NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE - GENERIC
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?