Richard v. State of New York Richmond County Criminal Supreme Court
| Aaron Perry Richard |
| State of New York Richmond County Criminal Supreme Court |
| 1:2020cv01268 |
| March 9, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Eric R Komitee |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a)(3), any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). Signed by Alicia Guy, Deputy Clerk, on behalf of Douglas C. Palmer Clerk of Court on 4/14/2020. c/m. (Guy, Alicia) |
Filing 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, the Petition is dismissed. No certificate of appealability (COA) shall issue in this case because Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Although Petitioner paid the filing fee to commence this action, 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). Ordered by Judge Eric R. Komitee on 4/14/2020. c/m with appeals packet. (Guy, Alicia)
|
| Filing 2 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. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus , filed by Aaron Perry Richard. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Kimberly) |
| FILING FEE: $ 5, receipt number 4653148753 (Davis, Kimberly) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Richard v. State of New York Richmond County Criminal Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: State of New York Richmond County Criminal Supreme Court | |
| 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: Aaron Perry Richard | |
| 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.
