Feltz v. Vann et al
Petitioner: Ryan Feltz
Respondent: NY State and Mary Vann
Case Number: 9:2019cv00387
Filed: April 1, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Andrew T Baxter
Referring Judge: Brenda K Sannes
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 May 1, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER denying #8 Motion for Reconsideration with prejudice. No Certificate of Appealability ("COA") shall issue because petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) requires. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 5/1/2019. (Copy served on petitioner via regular mail)(rjb, )
April 24, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 MOTION for Reconsideration of #4 Decision and Order filed by Ryan Feltz. (sal)
April 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 TEXT ORDER: Petitioner submitted an addendum to his habeas petition, Dkt. No. #6 , which apparently crossed in the mail with the Courts Decision and Order and Judgment dismissing petitioners action, Dkt. Nos. #4 and #5 . In light of petitioners pro se status, the Clerk of the Court accepted the document for filing. The documents were reviewed and do not cure the deficiencies identified in the Courts prior Order. Accordingly, the submission is rendered MOOT by the Courts Order dismissing the petition as unexhausted. Dkt. Nos. #4 and #5 . The Court advises petitioner, however, that in the future the Court will not review documents except to the extent they are specifically identified and referenced in connection with a properly filed application or motion. The Court docket is not intended to serve as a repository for records. Accordingly, petitioner is directed not to make further submissions of such supporting documentation for filing. SO ORDERED by District Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 4/17/2019. (Copy served upon petitioner via regular mail). (sal )
April 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ADDENDUM to #1 Petition filed by Ryan Feltz. (sal )
April 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the petition, Dkt. No. #1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust available state court remedies; and it is ORDERED, that petitioner's motions to (1) stay the present action (Pet. at 20), (2) appoint counsel (id. at 34-35, 42), and (3) grant bail (id. at 18-19, 22) are all similarly DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with a right to renew pending re-filing of the habeas petition; and it is ORDERED that no certificate of appealability ("COA") 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). Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals (Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)). This action is now CLOSED pursuant to the Decision and Order issued by the Honorable Brenda K. Sannes on April 8, 2019. See Dkt. No. #4 . (Copy served upon petitioner via regular mail). (sal )
April 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 DECISION AND ORDER that the petition, Dkt. No. #1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust available state court remedies; and it is ORDERED that petitioner's motions to (1) stay the present action (Pet. at 20), (2) appoint counsel (id. at 34-35, 42), and (3) grant bail (id. at 18-19, 22) are all similarly DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with a right to renew pending re-filing of the habeas petition; and it is ORDERED that no certificate of appealability ("COA") 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). Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals (Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)). Signed by District Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 4/8/2019. (Copy served upon petitioner via regular mail). (sal )
April 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Letter in support of #2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis application filed by Ryan Feltz, including a completed certification page and inmate account statement. (sal)
April 1, 2019 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Ryan Feltz. (nas, )
April 1, 2019 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5.00 - receipt no ALB011312) filed by Ryan Feltz. (Attachments: #1 2nd part, #2 3rd part, #3 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: Feltz v. Vann et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: NY State
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: Mary Vann
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: Ryan Feltz
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?