Pike v. Johnson

Pike v. Johnson

Petitioner:	Christa Gail Pike
Respondent:	Debra Johnson
Case Number:	1:2012cv00035
Filed:	January 31, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office:	Chattanooga Office
County:	Hamilton
Presiding Judge:	Susan K Lee
Presiding Judge:	Harry S Mattice
Nature of Suit:	Death Penalty
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 11, 2016	Filing 93 MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and her motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 45 ) will be DENIED. Respondent's mo tion for summary judgment (Doc. 42 ) will be GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 19 ) will be DENIED. After reviewing each of Petitioner's claims, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not conclude that Peti tioner's claims are adequate to deserve further review, nor would reasonable jurists debate the correctness of the Courts procedural ruling. As such, because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a COA will not issue. A SEPARATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ISSUE.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 3/11/2016. (BJL, )
June 6, 2013	Filing 32 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 6/6/13. (GRE, ) (Main Document 32 replaced on 6/6/2013) (GRE, ).

Date Filed

Document Text

March 11, 2016

Filing 93 MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and her motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 45 ) will be DENIED. Respondent's mo tion for summary judgment (Doc. 42 ) will be GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 19 ) will be DENIED. After reviewing each of Petitioner's claims, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not conclude that Peti tioner's claims are adequate to deserve further review, nor would reasonable jurists debate the correctness of the Courts procedural ruling. As such, because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a COA will not issue. A SEPARATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ISSUE.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 3/11/2016. (BJL, )

June 6, 2013

Filing 32 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 6/6/13. (GRE, ) (Main Document 32 replaced on 6/6/2013) (GRE, ).

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 Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pike v. Johnson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Christa Gail Pike
Represented By:	Stephen A Ferrell
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: Debra Johnson
Represented By:	Aaron E Winter
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?