Mejia v. Artus

Mejia v. Artus

Petitioner:	Cinto Mejia
Respondent:	Superintendent Dale Artus
Case Number:	1:2012cv02241
Filed:	May 3, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Nicholas G. Garaufis
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
March 31, 2016	Filing 12 ORDER ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Petitioner's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied in its entirety. Petitioner is further denied a certificate of appealability, as Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Lucidore v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a substantial showi ng exists where the issues involved in the case are debatable among jurists of reason, or a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further). The Court certifies pursuan t 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, 444-45 (1962). C/m to pro se Petitioner. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 3/31/2016. (Calabrese, Corey)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 31, 2016

Filing 12 ORDER ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Petitioner's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied in its entirety. Petitioner is further denied a certificate of appealability, as Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Lucidore v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a substantial showi ng exists where the issues involved in the case are debatable among jurists of reason, or a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further). The Court certifies pursuan t 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, 444-45 (1962). C/m to pro se Petitioner. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 3/31/2016. (Calabrese, Corey)

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: Mejia v. Artus
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Superintendent Dale Artus
Represented By:	KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE - GENERIC
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 ]
Petitioner: Cinto Mejia
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?