Olivier v. State of Tennessee et al
| Mardoche Olivier |
| Montgomery County Courts, Montgomery County Jail, Bonding Company and Tennessee, State of |
| 3:2017cv00836 |
| May 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Montgomery |
| Waverly D. Crenshaw |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AND ORDER: Because it appears from Petitioner's submission that he is unable to pay the filing fee, his IFP application (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. For these reasons, and those previously set forth by the Court i n Petitioner's previous case, Olivier v. Tennessee, et al., No. 3:17-cv-0832 (M.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017), this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's ability to refile upon the exhaustion of his state court remedies. Because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation in this matter, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. See Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2002) (A petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he ha s made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).). Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/1/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
|
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
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.
