Perez v. Miller

Perez v. Miller

Petitioner:	Neftali Perez
Respondent:	Christopher Miller
Case Number:	6:2014cv06223
Filed:	May 2, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of New York
Office:	Rochester Office
County:	Chemung
Presiding Judge:	Charles J. Siragusa
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
May 16, 2016	Filing 12 -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-DECISION AND ORDER denying and dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Neftali Perez, and denying a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of the Court is requested to close this case. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 5/16/2016. (AFB) A copy of ECF No. 12 (Decision and Order) and Filing Receipt sent by U.S. Mail to Petitioner at his address of record by AFB on 5/16/2016. Modified on 5/16/2016 (AFB).
December 15, 2015	Filing 10 DECISION AND ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioners application for assignment of pro bono counsel, ECF No. 9, is denied. Petitioner must move forward with this case either by obtaining counsel on his own, or by representing himsel f. Petitioner shall have until January 29, 2016, to reply to Respondents memorandum in opposition, and to identify any further evidence necessary for the Court to consider before rendering judgment on his petition.igned by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 12/15/15. Copy of this order and the NEF mailed to pro se plaintiff at Sing Sing (location per NYS DOCCS). (KAP)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 16, 2016

Filing 12 -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-DECISION AND ORDER denying and dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Neftali Perez, and denying a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of the Court is requested to close this case. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 5/16/2016. (AFB) A copy of ECF No. 12 (Decision and Order) and Filing Receipt sent by U.S. Mail to Petitioner at his address of record by AFB on 5/16/2016. Modified on 5/16/2016 (AFB).

December 15, 2015

Filing 10 DECISION AND ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioners application for assignment of pro bono counsel, ECF No. 9, is denied. Petitioner must move forward with this case either by obtaining counsel on his own, or by representing himsel f. Petitioner shall have until January 29, 2016, to reply to Respondents memorandum in opposition, and to identify any further evidence necessary for the Court to consider before rendering judgment on his petition.igned by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 12/15/15. Copy of this order and the NEF mailed to pro se plaintiff at Sing Sing (location per NYS DOCCS). (KAP)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Perez 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: Neftali Perez
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?