Bey v. Chappius

Bey v. Chappius

Petitioner:	Jamal Salaam Bey
Respondent:	Superintendent P. Chappius
Case Number:	1:2016cv07084
Filed:	December 19, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Lois Bloom
Presiding Judge:	Kiyo A. Matsumoto
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 30, 2019	Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, Based on the foregoing. Bey's petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus is DENIED. Petitioner's claim of insufficient evidence of "physical injury" is without merit and he failed to establish that the state court 's decision was contrary to, or involved in an unreasonable application of federal law, or that the state courts applied an unreasonable determination of the facts under § 2254(d)(1). Petitioner's claim challenging his sentence is eith er procedurally barred or unexhausted and, in either case, plainly meritless. Thus, the petition is DENIED in its entirety. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed dismiss the petition, mail a copy of this Order to petitioner at his address of record, note service on the docket, and close the case.(Certificate of Appealability denied re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/30/19. c/m Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 30, 2019

Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, Based on the foregoing. Bey's petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus is DENIED. Petitioner's claim of insufficient evidence of "physical injury" is without merit and he failed to establish that the state court 's decision was contrary to, or involved in an unreasonable application of federal law, or that the state courts applied an unreasonable determination of the facts under § 2254(d)(1). Petitioner's claim challenging his sentence is eith er procedurally barred or unexhausted and, in either case, plainly meritless. Thus, the petition is DENIED in its entirety. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed dismiss the petition, mail a copy of this Order to petitioner at his address of record, note service on the docket, and close the case.(Certificate of Appealability denied re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/30/19. c/m Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

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: Bey v. Chappius
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jamal Salaam Bey
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 P. Chappius
Represented By:	NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE - GENERIC
Represented By:	QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 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?