Burroughs v. Griffin

Burroughs v. Griffin

Petitioner:	Harold Burroughs, Jr.
Respondent:	Thomas Griffin
Case Number:	9:2013cv01505
Filed:	December 6, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
County:	Ulster
Presiding Judge:	Andrew T. Baxter
Presiding Judge:	Thomas J. McAvoy
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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
July 31, 2014	Filing 13 DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's motion to amend his petition, Dkt. No. 11 , is GRANTED. The Clerk shall docket petitioner's Proposed Amended Petition, Dkt. No. 11-1, as an Amended Petition; and it is further ORDERED that p etitioner's motion to stay, Dkt. No. 12 , is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the respondent shall file and serve an answer to the amended petition, and provide the court with the records relevant to the amended petition, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED that upon the filing of respondent's answer, the Clerk shall forward the entire file in this matter to the court for further review. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 7/3014. (ptm) (Copy served on petitioner by regular mail)
April 30, 2014	Filing 10 DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's letter motion to stay this action (Dkt. No. 9 ) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that if petitioner wants add the claims contained in his coram nobis application to his petition, he must file and serve upon the respondent a motion to amend his original petition, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order. Petitioner must atta ch a proposed amended petition setting forth all of the claims that he wants this court to consider, including the claims now raised in the petition and the new claims petitioner wants to add to the petition. Petitioner must also demonstrate either that his proposed amended petition is timely, or that it "relates back" to his original petition (Dkt. No. 1 ); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send petitioner a blank section 2254 habeas petition which he shoul d use for his proposed amended petition; and it is further ORDERED that if petitioner adds any new, unexhausted claims to his amended petition, he must concurrently re-file and serve upon respondent a motion to stay within thirty (30) days of the f iling date of this Decision and Order. Any renewed motion to stay must set forth: (1) that there is "good cause" for his failure to exhaust the new, unexhausted claims in state court prior to filing his habeas petition; (2) that his unex hausted claim is not "plainly meritless"; and (3) that there is no indication that he deliberately engaged in "dilatory tactics." Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277; and it is further ORDERED, that upon filing by petitioner of any motion to amend his petition, and/or any renewed motion to stay his petition, the Clerk is directed to return the file to the court for further review; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall not be required to file and serve an answer and memoran dum of law relating to the original petition (Dkt. No. 1 ) until further order by this court; and it is ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this decision and order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 4/30/2014. (ptm) (Copy served on petitioner by regular mail with a blank section 2254 habeas petition)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 31, 2014

Filing 13 DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's motion to amend his petition, Dkt. No. 11 , is GRANTED. The Clerk shall docket petitioner's Proposed Amended Petition, Dkt. No. 11-1, as an Amended Petition; and it is further ORDERED that p etitioner's motion to stay, Dkt. No. 12 , is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the respondent shall file and serve an answer to the amended petition, and provide the court with the records relevant to the amended petition, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED that upon the filing of respondent's answer, the Clerk shall forward the entire file in this matter to the court for further review. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 7/3014. (ptm) (Copy served on petitioner by regular mail)

April 30, 2014

Filing 10 DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's letter motion to stay this action (Dkt. No. 9 ) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that if petitioner wants add the claims contained in his coram nobis application to his petition, he must file and serve upon the respondent a motion to amend his original petition, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order. Petitioner must atta ch a proposed amended petition setting forth all of the claims that he wants this court to consider, including the claims now raised in the petition and the new claims petitioner wants to add to the petition. Petitioner must also demonstrate either that his proposed amended petition is timely, or that it "relates back" to his original petition (Dkt. No. 1 ); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send petitioner a blank section 2254 habeas petition which he shoul d use for his proposed amended petition; and it is further ORDERED that if petitioner adds any new, unexhausted claims to his amended petition, he must concurrently re-file and serve upon respondent a motion to stay within thirty (30) days of the f iling date of this Decision and Order. Any renewed motion to stay must set forth: (1) that there is "good cause" for his failure to exhaust the new, unexhausted claims in state court prior to filing his habeas petition; (2) that his unex hausted claim is not "plainly meritless"; and (3) that there is no indication that he deliberately engaged in "dilatory tactics." Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277; and it is further ORDERED, that upon filing by petitioner of any motion to amend his petition, and/or any renewed motion to stay his petition, the Clerk is directed to return the file to the court for further review; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall not be required to file and serve an answer and memoran dum of law relating to the original petition (Dkt. No. 1 ) until further order by this court; and it is ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this decision and order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 4/30/2014. (ptm) (Copy served on petitioner by regular mail with a blank section 2254 habeas petition)

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: Burroughs v. Griffin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Harold Burroughs, Jr.
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: Thomas Griffin
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?