Clark v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Clark v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Clark v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Petitioner:	Terry Clark
Respondent:	Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
Case Number:	1:2018cv00263
Filed:	April 13, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	WARREN
Presiding Judge:	Michael R. Barrett
Presiding Judge:	Stephanie K. Bowman
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
February 1, 2019	Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss 7 be GRANTED and Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 3 be DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. Petitioner� 39;s motions to amend 5 and to stay proceedings 14 be DENIED; (3) A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to any of Petitioner's time-barred claims; (4) With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal in for ma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Objections to R&R due by 2/15/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 2/1/2019. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 1, 2019

Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss 7 be GRANTED and Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 3 be DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. Petitioner� 39;s motions to amend 5 and to stay proceedings 14 be DENIED; (3) A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to any of Petitioner's time-barred claims; (4) With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal in for ma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Objections to R&R due by 2/15/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 2/1/2019. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

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

Search for this case: Clark v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Terry Clark
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: Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
Represented By:	Jerri Lynne Fosnaught
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?