Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution Warden

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution Warden

Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution Warden

Petitioner:	Michael Stansell
Respondent:	Grafton Correctional Institution Warden
Case Number:	1:2015cv01303
Filed:	June 30, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Cleveland Office
County:	Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge:	Patricia A. Gaughan
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
August 30, 2017	Filing 21 Memorandum of Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Furthermore, the Court certifies, purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/30/17. (LC,S) re 18
December 21, 2016	Filing 14 Order : Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice. No later than January 20, 2017, Respondent shall file a Return of Writ in which he may reassert his limitations defense in light of Crangle v. Kelly, 838 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2016). Petitioner shall file a Traverse no later than March 6, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg on 12/21/2016. (S,S)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 30, 2017

Filing 21 Memorandum of Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Furthermore, the Court certifies, purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/30/17. (LC,S) re 18

December 21, 2016

Filing 14 Order : Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice. No later than January 20, 2017, Respondent shall file a Return of Writ in which he may reassert his limitations defense in light of Crangle v. Kelly, 838 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2016). Petitioner shall file a Traverse no later than March 6, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg on 12/21/2016. (S,S)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution Warden
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael Stansell
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: Grafton Correctional Institution Warden
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?