LaTouche v. Graham
Valery LaTouche |
Harold D. Graham |
7:2010cv01388 |
February 22, 2010 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
White Plains Office |
Cayuga |
Paul E. Davison |
Cathy Seibel |
General |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 84 ORDER: Accordingly, the Rockland County District Attorney's Office is directed to file a response to the motion by August 22, 2022. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed by September 22, 2022. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of t his Order to: Office of the District Attorney of Rockland County, County Office Building, 1 South Main Street, Suite 500, New City, NY 10956 -and- Valery LaTouche, DIN 05-A-5812, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 354 Hunter Street, Ossining, NY 10562. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/22/2022, Replies due by 9/22/2022.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 7/22/2022) (mml) |
Filing 80 ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner's motion to vacate the judgment in this case and re-open the underlying habeas petition is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion (Doc. #77) and mail a copy of this Ord er to petitioner at the address on the docket. As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a ce1iificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The 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 therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 2/20/2020) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. |
Filing 55 MEMORANDUM DECISION for 44 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. As petition er has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The 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 therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 9/23/2013) The Clerks Office Has Mailed Copies. (rj) |
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: LaTouche v. Graham | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: Valery LaTouche | |
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: Harold D. Graham | |
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.