Giddens v. Barbee
| Samuel L. Giddens |
| Dwight Barbee |
| 3:2011cv00005 |
| January 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 45
ORDER: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has since vacated the Court's judgment as to the petitioner's first, second and fourth claims and remanded the case for an individual analysis of whether any of the remanded claims qualify for a cer tificate of appealability. Docket Entry No. 44 . Petitioner's first and second claims are once again DISMISSED. When a district court has rejected constitutional claims on the merits, a certificate of appealability will issue only if the petit ioner can show that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. With respect to the petitioner's first and second claims, that is not the case. Consequently, a certificate o f appealability shall not issue as to those claims. The petitioners fourth claim asserts that he was exposed to double jeopardy when he was charged with both attempted especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. In Tennessee, eachoffense r equires proof of an element that the other does not. As a consequence, double jeopardy was not implicated when the petitioner was charged with both crimes. Thus, this claim has no merit and is once again DISMISSED. Reasonable jurists would not find t his result debatable orwrong. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue asto the petitioner's fourth claim. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/27/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail & 6CCA via email.)(dt)
|
|
Filing 41
ORDER: The Court has before it a letter 40 from the pro se petitioner seeking legal advice. The Court has before it a letter 40 from the pro se petitioner seeking legal advice. A district judge has no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to a pro se litigant. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,231 (2004). Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner's letter requires no further action. A district judge has no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to a pro se litigant. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,231 (2004). Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner's letter requires no further action. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/22/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing 31
ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum contemporaneously entered, the Court finds that the petition 1 for writ of habeas corpus lacks merit. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED. Should the petitioner file a t imely notice of appeal from this order, such notice shall be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), which will NOT issue because the petitioner has been unable to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/29/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing 23
ORDER: Petitioner's Motion to Rehear for Appointment of Counsel 22 lacks merit and is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 2/25/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: The Clerk is directed to return the petitioner's unsigned petition to him. The petitioner shall sign the petition and resubmit it to the Clerk's Office within 14 days of the date of its receipt. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/6/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
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 Middle 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
| Search for this case: Giddens v. Barbee | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Dwight Barbee | |
| Represented By: | Jennifer L. Smith |
| Represented By: | Scott C. Sutherland |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: Samuel L. Giddens | |
| 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.
