Toolasprashad v. Schult

Toolasprashad v. Schult

Petitioner:	Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad
Respondent:	Deborah G. Schult
Case Number:	9:2010cv01289
Filed:	October 27, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
County:	Essex
Presiding Judge:	Lawrence E. Kahn
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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
November 29, 2011	Filing 26 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that Toolasprashad's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that no certificate of appealability 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). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 11/29/2011. (ptm) (Copy serve on petitioner by regular mail)
December 3, 2010	Filing 7 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that petitioner's 2 Motion to Expedite this action is DENIED. ORDERED, that petitioner's 3 Motion enjoining his transfer from FCI Ray Brook until his Petition is decided is DENIED. ORDERED, that the Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the Petition, and provide the Court with the records relevant to the Petition, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/3/10. (Order and petition served on petitioner, respondent, and US Attorney for the Northern District of New York by regular mail) (alh, )

Date Filed

Document Text

November 29, 2011

Filing 26 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that Toolasprashad's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that no certificate of appealability 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). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 11/29/2011. (ptm) (Copy serve on petitioner by regular mail)

December 3, 2010

Filing 7 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that petitioner's 2 Motion to Expedite this action is DENIED. ORDERED, that petitioner's 3 Motion enjoining his transfer from FCI Ray Brook until his Petition is decided is DENIED. ORDERED, that the Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the Petition, and provide the Court with the records relevant to the Petition, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/3/10. (Order and petition served on petitioner, respondent, and US Attorney for the Northern District of New York by regular mail) (alh, )

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: Toolasprashad v. Schult
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad
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: Deborah G. Schult
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?