McCray v. Wolcott
| Joseph McCray |
| Superintendent Julie Wolcott |
| 1:2020cv03920 |
| August 25, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| William F Kuntz |
| 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 September 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner's August 3, 2020 Petition filed under case number 20-CV-3920 is dismissed without prejudice to the claims pending in case number 20-CV-1442; that a certificate of appealability shall not issue, See 28 U.S.C. 2253; that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; and that in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). Ordered by Jalitza Poveda, Deputy Clerk on behalf of Douglas C. Palmer, Clerk of Court on 9/9/2020. (Tavarez, Jennifer) |
Filing 6
ORDER: The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case and to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Petitioner and to make a notation of mailing in the docket. The Clerk is also requested to send a copy of the docket sheet in 20-CV-1442. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed to make a "substantial 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 jurists 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). So Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 9/8/2020. (Love, Alexis)
|
| Filing 5 Case transferred in from District of New York Western; Case Number 1:20-cv-01037. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| Filing 4 TEXT ORDER denying #3 Motion for Reconsideration re #2 Order: Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's order transferring his Section 2241 petition to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Court's order did not hold that Petitioner must proceed under Section 2254 but, rather, expressly reserved that decision for the Eastern District of New York court to decide after transfer. See Dkt. 2, at 3 n.1. This Court recognizes that Petitioner challenges the validity of his state conviction. But that challenge does not change that Petitioner is in DOCCS (i.e., state) custody pursuant to a state conviction. See Dkt. 1, at 2, 4-6. As a result, venue for Petitioner's Section 2241 petition is proper in the Eastern District of New York for the reasons stated in the Court's prior order. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d); Dkt. 2, at 2-3. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 8/24/2020. (KEF)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-(Chambers mailed copy of text order to Petitioner on 8/24/2020.) [Transferred from New York Western on 8/25/2020.] |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Reconsideration re #2 Order to transfer by Joseph McCray.(SG) [Transferred from New York Western on 8/25/2020.] |
|
Filing 2
ORDER transferring the action to the Eastern District of New York. Signed by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 8/12/20. (SG) Plaintiff mailed copy. [Transferred from New York Western on 8/25/2020.]
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Joseph McCray. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (BK) [Transferred from New York Western on 8/25/2020.] |
| Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at #http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (BK) [Transferred from New York Western on 8/25/2020.] |
| The Pro Se Packet including: the Privacy Notice, Consent to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge and the Civil Case Timeline have been mailed to the Plaintiff. (BK) [Transferred from New York Western on 8/25/2020.] |
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: McCray v. Wolcott | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Superintendent Julie Wolcott | |
| 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: Joseph McCray | |
| 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.
