BENNETT v. GLUNT et al
Petitioner: DAVALIN CHARLES BENNETT
Respondent: STEPHEN A. GLUNT and CATHLEEN CANE
Case Number: 2:2013cv01775
Filed: December 12, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Clearfield
Presiding Judge: Maureen P. Kelly
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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
July 20, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by DAVALIN CHARLES BENNETT, and 8 Amended Document filed by DAVALIN CHARLES BENNETT, which collectively, constitute the operative habeas petition in this case, and whic h is denied, as is a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7-20-2016. A copy of the Opinion and this Notice of Electronic Filing are being sent to Petitioner via first class mail at his address of record. (tmr)
October 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER denying 25 Motion to present new evidence because the Court is precluded from considering such new evidence by the exhaustion and procedural default doctrines to the extent that Petitioner has not presented such new evidence in support of ne w claims to the State Courts. To the extent that Petitioner did present such new claims to the State Courts, this Court is bound to review the State Courts' disposition of those new claims based on the record created before the State Courts and cannot consider evidence presented for the first time to a federal habeas court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10-7-2014. A copy of the Order together with this Notice of Electronic Filing are being sent to Petitioner at his address of record via first class mai. (tmr)
May 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER denying 16 Motion Leave to file an Amended Habeas Petition albeit without prejudice to Petitioner filing a New Motion for Leave to File an Amended Habeas Petition and attaching thereto the proposed Amended Habeas Petition. Petitioner is giv en until June 15, 2014 in which to do so. Failure to file the New Motion for Leave to File an Amended Habeas Petition along with the proposed Amended Habeas Petition will result in Petitioner being deemed to have withdrawn the request to amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 5/20/2014. A copy of the Order along with this Notice of Electronic Filing is being sent to Petitioner at his address of record via first class mail. (tmr)
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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BENNETT v. GLUNT et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: DAVALIN CHARLES BENNETT
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: STEPHEN A. GLUNT
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: CATHLEEN CANE
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?