Murray v. Cunningham
Petitioner: Carlton Murray
Respondent: Robert Cunningham
Case Number: 1:2019cv00767
Filed: February 6, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Margo K Brodie
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Letter in opposition to stay petition by Robert Cunningham (Gill, Alyson)
March 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Attorney General of the State of New York or, the District Attorney of QUEENS County, as attorney for respondent, show cause before this Court by the filing of a return to the petition, why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued; On oor before 5/8/2019, respondent shall serve and file his opposition papers and shall file the original with proof of service with the Clerk of this Court; Respondent shall submit the transcript of the trial to this Court at the time of filing the opposition papers via hard copies labeled courtesy copy and include a disc copy (where the file(s) within the disc shall not exceed 5 megabytes each, the attachments shall also not exceed 5 megabytes each), and also file the original transcript of the trial via ECF; Respondent shall in every case, without exception, submit copies of petitioner's and the District Attorney's briefs on appeal or in connection with proceedings pursuant to C.P.L. 440 at the time of filing the opposition papers; Reply papers, if any, shall be served and filed by the petitioner, within twenty (20) days of receipt of the respondent's opposition papers and shall file his reply, if any, with the Clerk of this Court; and service of a copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be made by the Clerk of this Court, together with a copy of the petition, to the Attorney General of the State of New York, 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005, and the District Attorney of QUEENS County, and by mailing a copy of this order to the petitioner. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/8/2019. (Brucella, Michelle)
March 8, 2019 Opinion or Order ORDER re #5 First Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus Proceedings. Respondent is directed to respond to petitioner's motion on or before March 15, 2019. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/8/2019. (Beeney, Eliza)
February 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 First MOTION to Stay Habeas Corpus Proceedings by Carlton Murray. (Bonus, Justin)
February 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla)
February 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla)
February 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Case assigned to Judge Margo K. Brodie. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla)
February 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. by Carlton Murray (Bonus, Justin)
February 8, 2019 Opinion or Order NOTICE - the Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed Civil Cover Sheet (MISSING SECOND PAGE FORM). Counsel is directed to forward a completed Civil Cover Sheet, answering all questions in *** NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2) and CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY *** section on the second page. This document can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (Bowens, Priscilla)
February 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 1 First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-11176163, filed by Carlton Murray. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Bonus, Justin)

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: Murray v. Cunningham
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Robert Cunningham
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 ]
Petitioner: Carlton Murray
Represented By: Justin C Bonus
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?