Watson v. Artuz
| 1:1999cv01364 |
| February 23, 1999 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
84
ORDER TO ANSWER: Pursuant to a mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,petitioner Shane Watson has filed a second or successive petition in this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Docket ## 81-82. In accordance with Rule 4of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, I have considered the petition (Docket # 82-1) preliminarily and direct that respondent shall file either an answer or, if res pondent has a basis on which to seek to have the petition denied or dismissed that does not require an answer, a motion with respect to the petition: respondent shall file such answer or motion on or before December 19, 2023. the answer or motion shall include an affidavit describing any facts relevant to the answer or motion and all documents necessary for the adjudication of this matter, including but not limited to transcripts of any relevant proceedings, the briefs submitted on appeal, the record in any state post-conviction proceedings, and such other information as may be necessary for this Court to adjudicate the petition; the submission shall include a memorandum of law fully describing the factual and legal basis underlying the respondents opposition and each statement of fact therein shall be accompanied by a citation to the appropriate transcript, affidavit or document by paragraph or page number; petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date on which he is served with respondents answer or motion to file a response or traverse. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order, the Second Circuit Mandate (Docket82) and the Petition (Docket # 82-1) on the Attorney General of the State of Ne w York SO ORDERED. Christopher Artuz answer due 12/19/2023.( Motions due by 12/19/2023.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/20/2023) (rro) Transmission to Appeals Clerk. Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
78
OPINION & ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation for 53 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusions. On its own terms, the Report is thorough, convincing, and persuas ive. Further, having supplemented the record to hear live testimony from witness Holloway and having undertaken de nova review, the Court finds that such testimony reinforces the Report's conclusion. Holloway's testimony does not supply credible or compelling evidence of Watson's actual innocence so as to overcome the time bar to Watson's petition. The Court therefore denies Watson's petition. In recognition of the fact that the credibility of Holloway's reca ntation is a critical issue to the determination of Watson's Amended Petition, the Court, however, issues a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions pending at Dkts. 28 and 74 and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/21/2019) (anc) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
53
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: re: 28 Amended Petition filed by Shane Watson. For the foregoing reasons, Watson's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Docket # 28) should be denied. We recognize that this case presents difficult questio ns and it is possible that with the application of a different standard of review as to our consideration of the state court opinion, the result might have been different. Accordingly, it is recommended that in the event the petition is denied, a cer tificate of appealability issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 774 (2017) (a certificate of appealability should issue where the decision reached by the district court is "debatable"). Objections to R&R due by 2/13/2018. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/30/2018) (ama)
|
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 Southern 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: Watson v. Artuz | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
