DOMES v. LOCKETT et al
| EDWARD DOMES |
| MELVIN LOCKETT, PA. ATTORNEY GENERAL and THE ALLEGHENY CO. DISTRICT ATTORNEY |
| 2:2008cv01402 |
| October 6, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Allegheny |
| Lisa Pupo Lenihan |
| Lisa Pupo Lenihan |
| 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
8
MEMORANDUM ORDER dismissing 5 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus as a successive 2254 petition for which the Petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary certification from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as required under 28 U.S.C. 67; 2244 (b)(3), denying a certificate of appealability, and adopting 6 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; Clerk of Court to mark this case closed; Petitioner advised of appeal rights. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/4/08. (map)
|
|
Filing
6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by EDWARD DOMES be dismissed as a successive 2254 petition for which the Petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary certification from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Objections to R&R due by 12/1/2008. Signed by Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on November 12, 2008. (far)
|
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.
