Hill v. Miller
Petitioner: Anthony Hill
Respondent: Christopher Miller
Case Number: 1:2015cv06256
Filed: August 7, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Washington
Presiding Judge: James C. Francis
Presiding Judge: Analisa Torres
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 61 OPINION & ORDER. Petitioner has appealed the Court's denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion. (ECF No. 60.) The Court holds that a certificate of appealability ("COA") shall not issue in this matter. Because the Rule 60(b)(4) motion did not address the integrity of Petitioner's habeas proceedings, no reasonable jurist could find that the Rule 60(b)(4) motion showed that Petitioner's § 2254 petition stated a valid constitutional claim. A COA shall not issue in this matter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 6/22/20) (yv)
March 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 58 OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. All pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/4/2020) (va)
March 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER re: 55 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Anthony Hill. The Amended Report & Recommendation from which Petitioner seeks to appeal was not a final order or judgment. Thus, Petitioner's notice of appeal, motion for appoin tment of counsel, and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as premature, without prejudice to Petitioner to re-file these documents should this Court deny his pending Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 1996)(defendant's "premature" appeal, prior to entry of a final order, was a "nullity" that did not "divest the district court of jurisdiction"). The merits of Petitioner's reply to the Amended Report and Recommendation shall be addressed in a forthcoming Opinion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/3/2020) (va)
December 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 39 AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 25 Report and Recommendations. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of Judge Francis, familiarity with which is assumed. In the R & R, Judge Francis proposed t hat Petitioner's petition be denied. ECF No. 25. (As further set forth in this Order.) For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS Judge Francis's well-reasoned R & R in its entirety. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ o f habeas corpus is DENIED. Further, Petitioner's request for a stay is DENIED. Because the Petition makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status on appeal is denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444--45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and all unpublished decisions cited therein to Petitioner pro se and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 12/21/2016) (cf) Modified on 12/21/2016 (cf).
December 8, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 25 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS Judge Francis's well-reasoned R & R in its entirety. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Further, Petitioner's request for a stay is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and all unpublished decisions cited therein to Petitioner pro se and to close the case. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 12/7/2016) (kl)
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: Hill v. Miller
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Anthony Hill
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: Christopher Miller
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.

Why Is My Information Online?