Peoples v. Martuscello

Peoples v. Martuscello

Petitioner:	Michael Peoples
Respondent:	Daniel Martuscello
Case Number:	1:2015cv07274
Filed:	December 17, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Pamela K. Chen
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
November 29, 2018	Filing 15 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: For the reasons stated in the attached, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. Peoples is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed to make a "substanti al showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Middleton v. Attys. Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (denying certificate of appealability where petitioner has not shown that "reasonable j urists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case accordingly. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 11/29/2018. (Hess, Alexandra)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 29, 2018

Filing 15 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: For the reasons stated in the attached, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. Peoples is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed to make a "substanti al showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Middleton v. Attys. Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (denying certificate of appealability where petitioner has not shown that "reasonable j urists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case accordingly. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 11/29/2018. (Hess, Alexandra)

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: Peoples v. Martuscello
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Daniel Martuscello
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: Michael Peoples
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?