Whitfield v. Graham

Petitioner: Eric Whitfield
Respondent: Harold N. Graham
Case Number: 1:2010cv03038
Filed: April 9, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Cayuga
Referring Judge: Ronald L. Ellis
Presiding Judge: Richard J. Sullivan
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 96 OPINION AND ORDER re: 95 Letter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner's motion is DENIED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal rig ht. Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore, the Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 2/6/2018) (ras)
September 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: for 87 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons set forth above and in Judge Eilis's Report, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Petition - as modified by the addendum - is DENIED. In addition, be cause 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)(2); see also Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2 005). Furthermore, because any appeal would "lack[] an arguable basis in law or fact," Tavarez v. Reno, 54 F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1995), the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be undertaken in good faith, and, therefore,Petitioner may not proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to (I) enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close this case, and (2) mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 9/13/2017) (js)
November 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety, and forthe reasons set forth therein, denies the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c )(2), a certificate of appealability will not issue. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 11/29/2011) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cd)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Whitfield v. Graham
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Eric Whitfield
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Harold N. Graham
Represented By: Susan Holly Gliner
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 [ 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?