Pruitt v. Trapp

Petitioner: Kenyo Pruitt
Respondent: Byron Trapp
Case Number: 6:2017cv01916
Filed: November 30, 2017
Court: Oregon District Court
Office: Eugene (6) Office
Presiding Judge: Stacie F. Beckerman
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
May 16, 2018 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: This Court GRANTS Petitioner's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 19 ). This proceeding is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 5/16/2018 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (gw)

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

Search for this case: Pruitt v. Trapp
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Kenyo Pruitt
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Byron Trapp
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 [ 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?