Reed v. Travis et al
Case Number: 9:2005cv00236
Filed: February 24, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office: Prisoner Office
Presiding Judge: David E. Peebles
Presiding Judge: Gary L. Sharpe
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

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 31, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER denying Petitioner's 54 Motion to Vacate 39 judgment & further ordered that it declines to issue COA. Any further request for COA must be addressed by 2nd CCA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed not to acce pt any further pleading, motion, document, or paper filed by Petitioner in this case, other than a notice of appeal from this order, unless Petitioner has 1st obtained court leave to file such document. Any application for leave of court must be acco mpanied by a memorandum explaining how this Court has jurisdiction, citing at least 1 federal court decision reached w/in the past 50 years in which the court granted relief similar to the relief petitioner Reed seeks; Signed by Judge James K. Singleton dtd 7/31/09 (cml) [ CRD traditionally served upon non-NEF petitioner @ NYSDOC Altona Correctional facility ]
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Reed v. Travis et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?