Hill v. Anderson
| 4:1996cv00795 |
| April 18, 1996 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Youngstown Office |
| John R. Adams |
| Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution |
| 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
164
Memorandum of Opinion . The Court finds that Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision as to Hill's first ground for relief can be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 06/25/2014. (M,TL)
|
|
Filing
159
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Petitioner's Motion for Authorization for Habeas Counsel to Conduct State Court Litigation. Related document 156 . Judge John R. Adams on 5/15/2014. (R,Sh)
|
|
Filing
148
Order denying Petitioner's renewed Motion for discovery and to expand the record(Related Doc # 146 ). Judge John R. Adams on 7/10/12.(L,JD)
|
|
Filing
132
Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's Motion for Discovery (Related Doc # 117 ); denying without prejudice Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Related Doc # 118 ), no additional motions need be filed regarding this issue; denying Motion to Expand the Record Under Rule 5 and 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Related Doc # 119 and 120 ); granting Motion to Supplement re maining motions (Related Doc # 129 ) for the reasons stated within. Discovery shall be completed within 120 days of this Order. Petitioner's counsel shall file a status report 60 days after the date of this order, specifying the discovery that has been completed and/or scheduled. Upon review of the merits, the Court may determine that a genuine factual dispute exists which cannot be resolved on the record before the Court or through expansion of the record. In such case, the Court may reco nsider its decision about whether an evidentiary hearing should be held, and may revisit the issue about whether Petitioner has made the threshold showing needed to entitle him to a hearing if one appears advisable. Judge John R. Adams on 12/14/10.(R,Sh)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Hill v. Anderson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
