Reaves v. Superintendent

Reaves v. Superintendent

Petitioner:	Kevin Reaves
Respondent:	Superintendent
Case Number:	1:2016cv02221
Filed:	May 2, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Brian M. Cogan
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
September 12, 2016	Filing 17 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 9/12/16 denying petitioner's 12 Motion for reconsideration. A certificate of appealability will not issue as the motion fails to raise any substantial issues. The Court certifies pursuant to 28:19l5(a)(3) t hat any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 9/12/2016 ) c/m (Guzzi, Roseann)
June 15, 2016	Filing 7 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER that the petition is denied and the case is dismissed. A certificate of appealability will not issue as the petition fails to raise any substantial issues. The Court certifies pursuant to 28:19l5(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/15/2016 ) c/m *Forwarded for jgm. (Guzzi, Roseann)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 12, 2016

Filing 17 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 9/12/16 denying petitioner's 12 Motion for reconsideration. A certificate of appealability will not issue as the motion fails to raise any substantial issues. The Court certifies pursuant to 28:19l5(a)(3) t hat any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 9/12/2016 ) c/m (Guzzi, Roseann)

June 15, 2016

Filing 7 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER that the petition is denied and the case is dismissed. A certificate of appealability will not issue as the petition fails to raise any substantial issues. The Court certifies pursuant to 28:19l5(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/15/2016 ) c/m *Forwarded for jgm. (Guzzi, Roseann)

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: Reaves v. Superintendent
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Kevin Reaves
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: Superintendent
Represented By:	Keith Dolan
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 ]

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?