Mobayed v. McCarthy

Mobayed v. McCarthy

Petitioner:	Craig Mobayed
Respondent:	McCarthy
Case Number:	6:2018cv06393
Filed:	May 29, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of New York
Office:	Rochester Office
County:	Cayuga
Presiding Judge:	Charles J. Siragusa
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
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
February 5, 2021	Filing 10 DECISION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Craig Mobayed. The Court finds that Mobayed's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1] must be denied. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to close thi s case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, since Mobayed has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal in for ma pauperis 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 2/5/21. (KAP) Copy of this decision and order and NEF mailed to pro se petitioner at Auburn.-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Date Filed

Document Text

February 5, 2021

Filing 10 DECISION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Craig Mobayed. The Court finds that Mobayed's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1] must be denied. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to close thi s case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, since Mobayed has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal in for ma pauperis 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 2/5/21. (KAP) Copy of this decision and order and NEF mailed to pro se petitioner at Auburn.-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

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: Mobayed v. McCarthy
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Craig Mobayed
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: McCarthy
Represented By:	Alyson Gill, Arlene Roces, Laura Stockmyer (e-service)
Represented By:	Michelle E. Maerov
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?