Ankeney v. Jones

Filing 34

FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk re: 33 Order on 9/27/12. (lygsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Case No. 12-cv-00808-LTB RANDAL ANKENEY, Petitioner, v. SUSAN JONES, Warden of Fremont Correctional Facility, TOM CLEMENTS, Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections ("CDOC"), and JOHN SUTHERS, The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents. FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and the Orders entered throughout the course of proceedings in this case, the following final judgment is hereby entered. I. PURSUANT to and in accordance with the Order to Dismiss In Part entered by the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock on July 17, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth, it is ORDERED that claims 2, 4(a), and 4(b) are DISMISSED because those claims do not present any issues that are cognizable in this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. II. PURSUANT to and in accordance with the Order on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus entered by the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock on September 25, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth, it is ORDERED that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Respondents, Susan Jones, Tom Clements, and John Suthers, and against Petitioner, Randal Ankeney. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and/or 28 U.S.C. §2241 and this civil action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). DATED at Denver, Colorado this 27th day of September, 2012. FOR THE COURT: JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK s/ Edward P. Butler Edward P. Butler, Deputy Clerk 2

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?