Johnson v. Connolly

Johnson v. Connolly

Petitioner:	Darrin Johnson
Respondent:	William Connolly
Case Number:	1:2012cv04096
Filed:	August 13, 2012
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
April 29, 2013	Filing 6 ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of this Order only and DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas c orpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.&qu ot; 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. 7; 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. 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 Summary Order to pro se petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/29/2013. (Irizarry, Dora)
October 22, 2012	Filing 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( Show Cause Response due by 12/21/2012.) - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, petitioner is directed to show cause by written affirmation, no later than December 21, 2012, why the instant petition s hould not be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner's affirmation should include any facts that would support tolling of the statute of limitations. For Petitioner's convenience, an Affirmation Form, with the caption of this case is attached to the Court's Summary Order. No response to the petition shall be required at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for sixty (60) days for petitioner to comply with this Order, i.e. until December 21, 2012. If petitioner fail s to comply with this Order within the time allowed, the instant petition shall be dismissed as time-barred. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 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, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order, the Attached Written Summary Order and Affirmation Form to pro se petitioner. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 10/22/2012. (Irizarry, Dora)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 29, 2013

Filing 6 ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of this Order only and DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, the petition for a writ of habeas c orpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.&qu ot; 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. 7; 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. 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 Summary Order to pro se petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/29/2013. (Irizarry, Dora)

October 22, 2012

Filing 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( Show Cause Response due by 12/21/2012.) - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, petitioner is directed to show cause by written affirmation, no later than December 21, 2012, why the instant petition s hould not be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner's affirmation should include any facts that would support tolling of the statute of limitations. For Petitioner's convenience, an Affirmation Form, with the caption of this case is attached to the Court's Summary Order. No response to the petition shall be required at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for sixty (60) days for petitioner to comply with this Order, i.e. until December 21, 2012. If petitioner fail s to comply with this Order within the time allowed, the instant petition shall be dismissed as time-barred. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 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, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order, the Attached Written Summary Order and Affirmation Form to pro se petitioner. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 10/22/2012. (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. Connolly
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: William Connolly
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: Darrin 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 ]

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?