Houston v. Coleman

Houston v. Coleman

Petitioner:	Jimmy L. Houston
Respondent:	John Coleman
Case Number:	3:2016cv03043
Filed:	December 20, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Toledo Office
County:	Sandusky
Presiding Judge:	Sara Lioi
Presiding Judge:	James R. Knepp
Nature of Suit:	General
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
April 9, 2021	Filing 26 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 18 motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) filed by petitioner Jimmy L. Houston and denying 19 motion for leave of court to be officially granted equitable tolling; further, 20 peti tioner's separate memorandum setting forth his additional habeas corpus arguments is stricken from the record as an improperly filed successive habeas petition; finally, the Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) 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. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/9/2021. (E,CK)
September 19, 2017	Filing 14 Memorandum Opinion: Petitioner's objections are overruled and the Report and Recommendation is accepted. (Doc. No. 12 .) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and this case is dismissed. Further, the Court certifies 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. Section 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Sara Lioi on 9/19/2017. (P,J)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 9, 2021

Filing 26 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 18 motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) filed by petitioner Jimmy L. Houston and denying 19 motion for leave of court to be officially granted equitable tolling; further, 20 peti tioner's separate memorandum setting forth his additional habeas corpus arguments is stricken from the record as an improperly filed successive habeas petition; finally, the Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) 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. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/9/2021. (E,CK)

September 19, 2017

Filing 14 Memorandum Opinion: Petitioner's objections are overruled and the Report and Recommendation is accepted. (Doc. No. 12 .) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and this case is dismissed. Further, the Court certifies 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. Section 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Sara Lioi on 9/19/2017. (P,J)

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: Houston v. Coleman
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jimmy L. Houston
Represented By:	Kevin F. Hoskins
Represented By:	Kathleen C. Tranter
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: John Coleman
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?