Montague v. Carlton

Montague v. Carlton

Defendant:	Howard Carlton
Petitioner:	Charles Montague
Case Number:	2:2007cv00254
Filed:	October 12, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office:	Greeneville Office
County:	Washington
Presiding Judge:	J Ronnie Greer
Presiding Judge:	Dennis H Inman
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
July 30, 2018	Filing 57 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In this case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate whether he was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and a COA SHALL NOT ISSUE. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Lastly, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 7/30/2018. (Copy of Memorandum and Order mailed to Charles Montague)(JCK)
March 15, 2010	Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss and a supporting brief, arguing that the petitions should be dismissed on grounds of non-exhaustion of state remedies, timeliness, or procedural default of the claims asse rted. [Docs. 12, 13]. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be GRANTED. Based on the discussion, respondents motion to dismiss will be GRANTED [Doc. 12] and Montagues § 2254 petitions [Docs. 1, 3] will be DISMISSED. A separate order will enter. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 3/15/2010. (c/m to pro se petitioner)(RLC, )

Date Filed

Document Text

July 30, 2018

Filing 57 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In this case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate whether he was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and a COA SHALL NOT ISSUE. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Lastly, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 7/30/2018. (Copy of Memorandum and Order mailed to Charles Montague)(JCK)

March 15, 2010

Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss and a supporting brief, arguing that the petitions should be dismissed on grounds of non-exhaustion of state remedies, timeliness, or procedural default of the claims asse rted. [Docs. 12, 13]. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be GRANTED. Based on the discussion, respondents motion to dismiss will be GRANTED [Doc. 12] and Montagues § 2254 petitions [Docs. 1, 3] will be DISMISSED. A separate order will enter. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 3/15/2010. (c/m to pro se petitioner)(RLC, )

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: Montague v. Carlton
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Charles Montague
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 ]
Defendant: Howard Carlton
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?