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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

10-624 - Leberry v. John Howerton


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
10-624 - Leberry v. John Howerton
June 30, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER: Respondent shall file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the petition in conformance with Rule 5, Rules --- § 2254 Cases, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order on the docket. Petitioner, within 14 days from the date of entry of this order, shall file a statement acknowledging whether he has filed any previous petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a federal writ. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this Order by certified mail on the respondent, Warden Bell, and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 6/30/10. (dt)
August 5, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER: Respondent is to file a response to this petition within 20 days from the date of entry of this Order. Within 90 days after the filing of the state record, Petitioner shall file a summary of the state court record, on the following subjects in the order set forth below. Within 20 days from the date of the filing of the Petitioner's statement, the Respondent shall file his response, if any. The Petitioner's statement and Respondent's response shall also be e-mailed to the Court's secretary. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 8/5/10. (dt)
March 7, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER: This Motion for Discovery 41 is Denied without prejudice to be renewed by appointed counsel. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 3/7/11. (dt)
June 29, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER: The respondent may respond to the amended petition within 20 days of the date of entry of this order on the docket. Within 20 days of the date of the filing of respondent's response to the amended petition, Petitioner may file a reply. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order by certified mail on the respondent and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/29/11. (dt)
March 20, 2012
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that the petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief can be granted. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the Court deny the petitioner's amended application for writ of habeas corpus 50 and dismiss the instant action. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice and must state with particularity the specific portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 3/20/2012. (hb)
July 23, 2012
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 7/23/2012. (hb)
July 23, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court enters the following rulings: (1) The Report and Recommendation (docket No. 63) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 68) are hereby OVERRULED; (3) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) and his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 50) are hereby DENIED; and (4) A Certificate of Appealability is hereby issued solely on question of whether Petitioner can show cause for the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012). The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 7/23/2012. (hb)
June 16, 2015
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Upon careful consideration of the Briefs and Reply submitted by the parties and a review of the record, it appears that the petitioner is unable to establish prejudice sufficient to excuse the procedural default of his ineffective assistance/impeachment claim. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that this claim be DENIED for an unexcused procedural default and that the instant action be DISMISSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 6/16/2015. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
January 27, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The R & R, (Docket No. 91), is ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and (2) Petitioner's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to properly impeach the victim is hereby DENIED for an unexcused procedural default; and (3) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Docket No. 1), is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter a final judgment in accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/27/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)