Pollack v. Patterson et al
| Marvin Arnold Pollack |
| David A. Patterson, Kathleen Rice, Michael F. Hogan and Peggi Healy |
| 1:2010cv06297 |
| August 23, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Orange |
| John G. Koeltl |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| 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
123
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER # 101974: The Court has carefully considered all of the parties' arguments. To the extent not specifically addressed above, they are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the petitioners moti on for reconsideration or reargument of the Court's December 22, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and Order is denied. The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability, or to reconsider the previous refusal to do so, because " [w]her e, as here, the denial of the habeas petition is based upon procedural grounds, the certificate of appealability must show that jurists of reason would find debatable two issues: (1) that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling, and ( 2) that the applicant has established a valid constitutional violation," and no such showing can be made in this case. Richardson v. Greene, 497 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1) (A). The plaintiff may, however, seek a certificate of appealability directly from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 6/21/2012) (mro) Modified on 6/22/2012 (ft).
|
|
Filing
112
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cott, and overrules the plaintiffs objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability and as further set forth in this document. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment denying the petition and closing this case. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/22/2011) (cd)
|
|
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: At this point in the proceedings, the Court denies the plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal because the Court cannot determine based on the record that the plaintiff's claims are substantial or that he is likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiff should work with the Pro Se Office of the Court for any additional help that he needs and should also seek to obtain private counsel. The Pro Se Office may be contacted at : Pro Se Office, United States District Court, S.D.N.Y., 500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007, 212-805-0175. So Ordered (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/1/2010) (js)
|
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.
