Bruce-Ross v. Ewald

Bruce-Ross v. Ewald

Petitioner:	Duncan Bruce-Ross
Respondent:	Warden Ewald
Case Number:	2:2016cv01767
Filed:	April 12, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Joseph F. Bianco
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
May 3, 2016	Filing 7 OPINTION AND ORDER: ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. For the reasons set forth above, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted butthe petition for a wri t of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice as it is unexhausted. Petitioner's application for the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent him in this case is denied as it is now moot. A certificate of appealability shall not issue as petitioner has not madea substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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 t herefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of theCourt is directed to close the case.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 5/3/2016. (Bollbach, Jean)cm by chambers to pro se by fcm on 5/3/16

Date Filed

Document Text

May 3, 2016

Filing 7 OPINTION AND ORDER: ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. For the reasons set forth above, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted butthe petition for a wri t of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice as it is unexhausted. Petitioner's application for the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent him in this case is denied as it is now moot. A certificate of appealability shall not issue as petitioner has not madea substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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 t herefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of theCourt is directed to close the case.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 5/3/2016. (Bollbach, Jean)cm by chambers to pro se by fcm on 5/3/16

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: Bruce-Ross v. Ewald
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Duncan Bruce-Ross
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: Warden Ewald
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?