Brown v. Bell
Petitioner: Ikikok Brown and Ikiko Brown
Respondent: Earl Bell
Case Number: 9:2018cv01406
Filed: December 3, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Glenn T Suddaby
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
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Decision and Order, the petition (Dkt. No. 1), the Court's December 19, 2018, Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 4), and petitioner's affirmation (Dkt. No. 5) upon respondent and the Attorney General of the State of New York in accordance with Local Rule 72.4(e). ORDERED that respondent shall file and serve an answer to the petition, and provide the Court with the relevant records, within ninety (90) days of the date of this Decision and Order. ORDERED that petitioner may, but is not required to, file a reply within thirty (30) days of the filing date of respondent's answer. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/22/19.[ response due by Earl Bell served on 1/22/2019, answer due 4/22/2019] (Attachments: #1 petition with exhibits, #2 12/19/18 Decision and Order (dkt. no. 4), #3 Affiramtion (dkt. no. 5)){served as directed}(nas)
January 17, 2019 Filing 5 Affirmation in response to #4 Order by Ikikok Brown. (nas, )
December 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 4 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner may file a written affirmation, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order, explaining why the statute of limitations should not bar this petition. The affirmation shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length. Petitioner should state the date(s) upon which he filed any state court applications for relief in which he challenged his conviction, including the name and location of the court(s) in which he filed each application, and the date(s) upon which the application(s) were denied. If petitioner is asking the court to equitably toll the limitations period, he must set forth facts establishing a basis for the application of equitable tolling as stated above. If petitioner is asking the Court to apply an equitable exception to the limitations period, he must set forth facts establishing a basis for doing so. No answer to the petition will be required from the respondent until petitioner has submitted the required affirmation, and the Court has had the opportunity to review his arguments. ORDERED that upon petitioner's submission of the written affirmation, the Clerk shall forward the entire file to the court for review. ORDERED that if petitioner fails to submit the required affirmation, this petition shall be dismissed as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) with no further order from the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/19/18. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}( Notice of Compliance Deadline 1/18/2019, Case Review Deadline 2/19/2019)(nas, )
December 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 3 TEXT ORDER REOPENING CASE: This action was administratively closed due to petitioner's failure to comply with the filing fee requirements, and petitioner was directed to respond to the Order if s/he wished to pursue this action. Petitioner has now responded. The Clerk is directed to reopen this action and restore it to the Court's active docket. Authorized by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/11/18. {text order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas, )
December 11, 2018 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number ALB01191 (nas, )
December 4, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER Directing Administrative Closure with Opportunity to Comply with Filing Fee Requirement. ORDERED that because this action was not properly commenced, the Clerk is directed to administratively close this action. ORDERED that if petitioner wants to pursue this action, he must so notify the Court WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS of the filing date of this Order and either: (1) pay the court's filing fee of five dollars ($5.00); or (2) submit a completed and signed IFP Application that has been certified by an appropriate prison official at his facility. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/4/2018. (Order and blank IFP form served on petitioner via regular mail).(rar)
December 3, 2018 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ikikok Brown. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Law, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 cover letter, #7 affidavit of service, #8 envelope)(nas, )

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: Brown v. Bell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Earl Bell
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: Ikikok Brown
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: Ikiko Brown
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?