Davis v. Bradt

Davis v. Bradt

Petitioner:	Clifton Davis
Respondent:	Warden M. Bradt
Case Number:	1:2010cv03587
Filed:	August 2, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Dora Lizette Irizarry
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
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 28, 2013	Filing 6 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as time-barred. 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); Luc iadore v. N.Y. 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 i s 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 Memorandum and Order to pro se petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 8/28/2013. (Irizarry, Dora)
October 6, 2010	Filing 2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 IS NOT TIME-BARRED -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, petitioner is directed to show cause by affirmation, within thir ty (30) days of the entry of this Order, i.e., on or before November 5, 2010, why the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations should not bar the instant petition. If petitioner believes that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B),(C), or (D) apply to this cas e, or if he filed additional state court petitions that would toll the limitations period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), or has additional grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, he shall present the supporting facts to the court in his affirmation and shall append to his affirmation documentary evidence, if available, supporting his allegations. In light of petitioner's pro se status, an affirmation form is attached to the Written Summary Order for hi s convenience. No response shall be required from respondent at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed until the petitioner has complied with this Order, but not later than November 5, 2010. If petitioner fails to comply with this Or der by November 5, 2010, the instant petition will be dismissed as time-barred. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order, the Attached Written Summary Order and Sample Affirmation Form to pro se petitioner. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 10/6/2010. (Irizarry, Dora)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 28, 2013

Filing 6 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as time-barred. 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); Luc iadore v. N.Y. 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 i s 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 Memorandum and Order to pro se petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 8/28/2013. (Irizarry, Dora)

October 6, 2010

Filing 2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 IS NOT TIME-BARRED -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, petitioner is directed to show cause by affirmation, within thir ty (30) days of the entry of this Order, i.e., on or before November 5, 2010, why the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations should not bar the instant petition. If petitioner believes that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B),(C), or (D) apply to this cas e, or if he filed additional state court petitions that would toll the limitations period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), or has additional grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, he shall present the supporting facts to the court in his affirmation and shall append to his affirmation documentary evidence, if available, supporting his allegations. In light of petitioner's pro se status, an affirmation form is attached to the Written Summary Order for hi s convenience. No response shall be required from respondent at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed until the petitioner has complied with this Order, but not later than November 5, 2010. If petitioner fails to comply with this Or der by November 5, 2010, the instant petition will be dismissed as time-barred. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order, the Attached Written Summary Order and Sample Affirmation Form to pro se petitioner. 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: Davis v. Bradt
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Warden M. Bradt
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 ]
Petitioner: Clifton Davis
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?