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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

11-510 - Jones v. Lee

Download Files


Document in Context
11-510 - Jones v. Lee
February 21, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER: SO ORDERED that that, on or before Monday, April 16, 2012, respondent shall file and serve either: (1) a response to the merits of the petition; or (2) a brief supplementing its motion to dismiss and specifically addressing the timeliness issues raised in petitioner's April!!, 2011 submission to the Court [Docket Entry No.7]. If respondent chooses to supplement its motion to dismiss, he shall submit any available logs recording the date and time at which the prison authorities received the petition for mailing. Petitioner's opposition to respondent's filing, if any, shall be filed on or before Wednesday, May 16, 2012. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve copies of this order upon all parties. CM to pro se petitioner. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 2/21/2012. (Florio, Lisa)
January 17, 2018
PDF | More
rsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case accordingly. (Hess, Alexandra) (Main Document 22 replaced on 1/18/2018 due to typographical error) Modified on 1/18/2018. (Abdallah, Fida)ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. Jones is denied a certificate of appealability, as he has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Middleton v. Attys Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (denying certificate of appealability where petitioner has not shown that "reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Additionally, the Court certifies pu