YUNIK v. HARLOW, et al
| JAY V. YUNIK |
| MICHAEL HARLOW, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CRAWFORD |
| 1:2008cv00304 |
| November 3, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Crawford |
| Susan Paradise Baxter |
| Sean J. McLaughlin |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
31
MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2010; IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be, and hereby is, DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Inasmuch as jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the instant pet ition is a second or successive petition over which jurisdiction is lacking, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter dated April 21, 2010 28 is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 05/14/2010. (kas)
|
|
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations; denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 1/22/09. (kas)
|
|
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by JAY V. YUNIK, be denied. Objections to R&R due by 12/5/2008. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 11/18/08. (lrw)
|
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 Pennsylvania Western 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
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.
