Fernandez v. Artuz, et al
| Pablo Fernandez |
| Philip Heath and Michael Capra |
| 2:2000cv07601 |
| October 10, 2000 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square - Suspense Office |
| Dutchess |
| Gabriel W. Gorenstein |
| Kimba M. Wood |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| Plaintiff |
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
155
OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner has requested a certificate of appealability following this Court's denial of his Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court denies this request because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, as is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 11/10/2016) (kl)
|
|
Filing
152
OPINION AND ORDER re: 145 Report and Recommendation. With respect to the argument that prosecutorial misconduct resulted in perjured testimony at trial, the Court finds that Justice Allen's findings that the trial testimony was not p erjured was not an unreasonable determination, for largely the reasons stated in the R&R, and that none of the post-trial "evidence" cited by Petitioner would render Justice Allen's findings unreasonable. The Court thus denies the writ of habeas corpus, and denies the other relief sought by Petitioner. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 11/1/2016) (kl)
|
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
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.
