Brooks v. Smith
| William Brooks, Jr. |
| Brandon Smith |
| 9:2020cv00099 |
| January 29, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Mae A D'Agostino |
| Daniel J Stewart |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the Clerk respectfully serve a copy of this Decision and Order on petitioner in accordance with the Local Rules; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk respectfully serve copies of this Decision and Order, the petition (Dkt. No. #1 ), the Court's February 3, 2020, Decision and Order (Dkt. No. #2 ), and petitioner's affirmation and attachments (Dkt. No. #3 ) upon respondent and the Attorney General of the State of New York in accordance with Local Rule 72.4(e); and it is further 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. (Response due by Brandon Smith served on 3/12/2020, answer due 6/10/2020). Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/11/2020. (Attachments: #1 Petition, #2 Decision and Order, #3 Affirmation)(Copy served via regular mail)(meb) |
| Filing 3 AFFIRMATION in compliance of #2 Order by William Brooks, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 envelope)(nas, ) |
| Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Review Deadline 4/3/2020 (nas, ) |
| Filing 2 DECISION AND ORDER: It is 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 twenty (20) pages in length. It is further ORDERED that upon petitioner's submission of the written affirmation, the Clerk shall forward the entire file to the Court for review; and it is further 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. (Notice of Compliance Deadline 3/4/2020). Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 2/3/2020. (Copy served via regular mail)(meb) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee paid $5. Receipt number SYR056784) filed by William Brooks, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Mailing envelope)(meb) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Brooks v. Smith | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: William Brooks, 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: Brandon Smith | |
| 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.
