Elliott v. Genovese et al
Petitioner: Brian O'Neal Elliott
Respondent: Kevin Genovese and The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee
Case Number: 3:2017cv00250
Filed: February 3, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Nashville Office
County: Davidson
Presiding Judge: Aleta A. Trauger
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
January 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER: This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 29, 2017, the court denied Brian ONeal Elliot's petition for the writ of habeas corpus, dismissed this action, and denied a certific ate of appealability. (Doc. No. 18 .) Pending before the court is the petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(6) and/or 60 (d)(1) (Rule 60 motion). (Doc. No. 20 .) The respondent filed a response. (Doc. No. 21 .) For the following reasons, the court concludes that the petitioner's Rule 60 motion is substantively a second or successive habeas petition, and the court, therefore, must transfer the motion to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Cl erk is DIRECTED to place pages 6 through 50 of Docket Entry No. 20 UNDER SEAL by removing these pages from Docket Entry No. 20 and attaching them to Docket Entry No. 20 as a separate, sealed attachment. This will create a new docket entry a t Docket Entry No. 20-1. The remaining pages of Docket Entry No. 20 (pages 15, 51, and 52) shall remain unsealed at the same docket entry. The Clerk is then directed to TRANSFER the motion (Doc. No. 20 and Doc. No. 20-1) to the United States Co urt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, for consideration as an application for consideration as an application for permission to file a second or successive habeas petition. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ensure that the Sixth Circuit receives notice of t his order. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/9/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by ECF). (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jm)
November 29, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/29/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)
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 this case: Elliott v. Genovese 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: Brian O'Neal Elliott
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: Kevin Genovese
Represented By: Richard Davison Douglas
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: The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee
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?