Davis v. Evans et al
| Sephora K. Davis |
| Andrea W. Evans and Brian Fischer |
| 6:2012cv06135 |
| March 16, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Monroe |
| Charles J. Siragusa |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
55
ORDER granting 43 Motion to Strike; granting 46 Motion to Strike. Respondents motion to strike (ECF No. 43) Petitioners memorandum of law dated February 18, 2014 (ECF No. 42) is granted; and Respondents motion to strike (ECF No. 46) Petitioners memorandum of law dated March 4, 2014 (ECF No. 45) is granted. The Court will not consider any of the arguments asserted in ECF Nos. 42 and 45. The Clerk of the Court is requested to note on the docket of this case that ECF Nos. 42 and 45 have been stricken. The parties are advised that as of the date of entry of this Decision and Order, briefing is closed in regard to Petitioners motions to alter the judgment (ECF Nos. 26, 35). The Court will not accept for filing any additional memoranda of l aw in support of Petitioners motions for reconsideration. Petitioners counsel is directed to comply with the Districts Local Rules and is cautioned that any future violations may result in sanctions. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 11/3/14. (MWP)
|
|
Filing
24
DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 8 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 10 MOTION to Dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus ; finding as mo ot 19 Motion to Strike. Respondents motion to dismiss, June 6, 2012, ECF No. 10, is granted. Consequently, the remaining motions are denied as moot.The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order and subsequent Judgment would not be taken in good faith, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is hereby denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person should be directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 8/15/12. (KAP)
|
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 Western 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.
