HAYNES v. WENEROWICZ et al
| GERARD VON HAYNES |
| MICHAEL WENEROWICZ and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2013cv01137 |
| August 6, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Montgomery |
| Maureen P. Kelly |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and re 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by GERARD VON HAYNES. As set forth more fully within, the Report and Recommendation 20 will be adopted and an order will be entered dismissing the Amended Petition. A certificate of appealability will also be DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/5/2016. (cal)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER granting 16 Motion to Amend/Correct, Petitioner's three new claims raised in the Motion are deemed to constitute an Amended Habeas Petition together with the Original Petition and the Respondents are ORDERED to file a Supplemental Answe r addressing the three new claims as directed more fully in the Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 12-12-2014. A copy of this Order together with the Notice of Electronic Filing are being sent to Petitioner at his address of record via first class mail. (tmr)
|
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.
