Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2994 - COOPER v. SUPERINTENDENT, WESTVILLE INDUSTRIAL FACILITY


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2994 - COOPER v. SUPERINTENDENT, WESTVILLE INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
November 21, 2016
PDF | More
ENTRY - The petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel [dkt 7] is denied. (See entry.) Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/21/2016. (JLS)
April 3, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - The action is therefore dismissed without prejudice base on Cooper's failure to exhaust available remedies in the Indiana state courts prior to filing this action. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c), the court finds that Cooper has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it Adebatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/3/2017.(JLS)
June 20, 2017
PDF | More
from which transcripts could be produced. See Entry for additional information. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/20/2017. (SWM) ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters: This action for habeas corpus relief brought by Petitioner Carl Cooper ("Cooper"), a state inmate, was dismissed on April 3, 2017 based on the finding that he failed to exhaust available state court remedies prior to filing the action. In a motion filed on April 20, 2017, the Cooper seeks reconsideration of the disposition based on the re- assertion of the merits of his habeas claim. There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. The Court did not misapprehend the claims, nor did it misapply the law to those claims in finding that dismissal without prejudice was required. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider Dkt. 35, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is denied. Cooper's motion to compel production of transcripts Dkt. 34 is denied because there was no hearing on April 3, 2017 and because there were no proceedings conducted in this case