Lora v. West
| 1:2004cv01902 |
| March 10, 2004 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Gabriel W. Gorenstein |
| Richard J. Holwell |
| 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
55
ORDER denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration re 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 28 Memorandum & Opinion,,. filed by Jose Lora. For all of these reasons, Kemp does not provide a basis for this Court to reopen the September 2010 Orde r. The Court accordingly denies Petitioner's motion to reopen. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) . The Court further certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S . 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 52 and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner at his address of record. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/1/2022) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER denying 41 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability is denied, as is his application for an evidentiary hearing. Further, the Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket to reflect Petitioner's current mailing address, since Petitioner is no longer represented by counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/25/2019) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rro)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER: Judge Gorenstein carefully weighed the affidavit of Lora's sister in his Report and Recommendation, but concluded that Lora's delay in filing his motion was nevertheless unreasonable. This Court agreed. "An appeal may not be tak en in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court finds that any appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of any appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 1/31/2011) (jpo)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER: On April 16, 2010, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Court deny Petitioner Jose Loras Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Court has considered Lora's other arguments and finds that they lack merit. The Report is adopted in its entirety and the motion for reconsideration 20 is denied. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 9/16/2010) (jfe)
|
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: Lora v. West | |
|---|---|
| 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.
