Hall v. Le Claire
| Ralph Hall |
| Darwin Le Claire |
| 1:2010cv03877 |
| May 11, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Washington |
| Loretta A. Preska |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| 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
387
ORDER: The Court has received Petitioner's pro se motion, which the Court construes as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and supporting materials. (See dkt. nos. 384-386.) Respondents shall respond to Petitioner&# 039;s motion no later than May 17, 2024. Petitioner shall file his reply, if any, no later than June 14, 2024. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. ( Replies due by 6/14/2024., Responses due by 5/17/2024) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 4/19/2024) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
379
ORDER denying 377 Motion for Reconsideration re 377 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 331 Clerk's Judgment, filed by Ralph Hall. The Court denies Hall's motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure. (ECF No. 377.) Because the petition makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) tha t 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. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good fa ith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Hall and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 1/6/2022) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
330
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 253 Report and Recommendations. For the foregoing reasons, the Report [dkt. no. 253] is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealability to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED. Petitioner's objections [dkt. nos. 255-56] are OVERRULED. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter closed and all pending motions denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail a copy of this judgment to Petitioner and note service on the docket. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/20/2015) (lmb)
|
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: Hall v. Le Claire | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Ralph Hall | |
| 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: Darwin Le Claire | |
| 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.
