DeMirdjian v. Griffin

DeMirdjian v. Griffin

Petitioner:	Edward DeMirdjian
Respondent:	T. Griffin
Case Number:	1:2017cv04547
Filed:	June 15, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Paul G. Gardephe
Presiding Judge:	Sarah Netburn
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
October 6, 2020	Filing 49 ORDER: ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 41 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated above, the R&R is adopted in its entirety, and Demirdjian's Section 2254 petition is denied. Demirdjian's request to supplement his orig inal petition with additional claims is denied. A certificate of appealability will not issue, because Demirdjian has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Where, as here, " a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straight forward: The Petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Demirdjian has made no such showing here. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Copies mailed by Chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 10/06/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama)
October 4, 2017	Filing 19 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 13 APPLICATION to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006(A)(g) (Habeas Corpus Petition), filed by Edward DeMirdjian. By letter addressed to Judge Gardephe, Petitioner Edward DeMirdjian requests a 90-day extension to file his reply brief. Pursuant to the Court's Order to Answer, Petitioner's time to file a reply would be October 13, 2017. The Petitioner's request is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will not grant Petitioner an a dditional 90 days to file his reply brief, but a more modest extension is appropriate given that Petitioner is proceeding pro se and lacks familiarity with the legal system. Petitioner shall file his reply brief no later than Monday, December 12, 2017. This extension provides Petitioner with a full 90 days to prepare his reply brief. In addition, to the extent the Respondent has not served Petitioner with all of the records identified in the September 7, 2017 Affirmation of Deborah L. Morse , Respondent must do so immediately and advise the Court of the same. Finally, the Court will mail a copy of the docket sheet to Petitioner with this Order. By letter motion dated September 13, 2017, Petitioner moves the Court to appoint pro bono counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. Here, Petitioner claims that the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial in state court by making improper comments during summation. Petitioner also claims that his trial counsel pro vided ineffective assistance. The merits of Petitioner's claims are not so apparent as to warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's application without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to ter minate the motion at ECF No. 13, and as further set forth in this order. Motions terminated: 13 APPLICATION to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006(A)(g) (Habeas Corpus Petition), filed by Edward DeMirdjian. (Replies due by 12/12/2017.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/4/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ap)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 6, 2020

Filing 49 ORDER: ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 41 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated above, the R&R is adopted in its entirety, and Demirdjian's Section 2254 petition is denied. Demirdjian's request to supplement his orig inal petition with additional claims is denied. A certificate of appealability will not issue, because Demirdjian has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Where, as here, " a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straight forward: The Petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Demirdjian has made no such showing here. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Copies mailed by Chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 10/06/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama)

October 4, 2017

Filing 19 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 13 APPLICATION to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006(A)(g) (Habeas Corpus Petition), filed by Edward DeMirdjian. By letter addressed to Judge Gardephe, Petitioner Edward DeMirdjian requests a 90-day extension to file his reply brief. Pursuant to the Court's Order to Answer, Petitioner's time to file a reply would be October 13, 2017. The Petitioner's request is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will not grant Petitioner an a dditional 90 days to file his reply brief, but a more modest extension is appropriate given that Petitioner is proceeding pro se and lacks familiarity with the legal system. Petitioner shall file his reply brief no later than Monday, December 12, 2017. This extension provides Petitioner with a full 90 days to prepare his reply brief. In addition, to the extent the Respondent has not served Petitioner with all of the records identified in the September 7, 2017 Affirmation of Deborah L. Morse , Respondent must do so immediately and advise the Court of the same. Finally, the Court will mail a copy of the docket sheet to Petitioner with this Order. By letter motion dated September 13, 2017, Petitioner moves the Court to appoint pro bono counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. Here, Petitioner claims that the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial in state court by making improper comments during summation. Petitioner also claims that his trial counsel pro vided ineffective assistance. The merits of Petitioner's claims are not so apparent as to warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's application without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to ter minate the motion at ECF No. 13, and as further set forth in this order. Motions terminated: 13 APPLICATION to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006(A)(g) (Habeas Corpus Petition), filed by Edward DeMirdjian. (Replies due by 12/12/2017.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/4/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ap)

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: DeMirdjian v. Griffin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Edward DeMirdjian
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: T. Griffin
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?