Bermudez v. Conway

Bermudez v. Conway

Petitioner:	Isaias Bermudez
Respondent:	James T. Conway
Case Number:	1:2009cv01515
Filed:	April 10, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
County:	Kings
Presiding Judge:	Dora Lizette Irizarry
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
August 30, 2012	Filing 25 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 --- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN OPINION AND ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied in its entirety and the case is dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed 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); Luciadore 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 wou ld not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Opinion and Order to pro se petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 8/30/2012. (Irizarry, Dora)
April 20, 2011	Filing 23 ORDER denying 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 22 Motion for TRO - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, pro se petitioner's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order are DENIED in their entirety. 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. Coppe dge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to pro se petitioner a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/20/2011. (Irizarry, Dora)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 30, 2012

Filing 25 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 --- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN OPINION AND ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied in its entirety and the case is dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed 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); Luciadore 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 wou ld not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Opinion and Order to pro se petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 8/30/2012. (Irizarry, Dora)

April 20, 2011

Filing 23 ORDER denying 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 22 Motion for TRO - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, pro se petitioner's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order are DENIED in their entirety. 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. Coppe dge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to pro se petitioner a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/20/2011. (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: Bermudez 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: Isaias Bermudez
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 T. Conway
Represented By:	Anastasia Spanakos-Orfan
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?