PRIDGEN v. SHANNON, 00-4561. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150407b30
Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2015, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's Motion 60(b) Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition (Document No. 94, filed December 29, 2014); pro se petitioner's Motion the Term [sic] Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 95, filed February 4, 2015); and pro se petitioner's Motion to Define the Term Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Docum
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2015, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's Motion 60(b) Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition (Document No. 94, filed December 29, 2014); pro se petitioner's Motion the Term [sic] Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 95, filed February 4, 2015); and pro se petitioner's Motion to Define the Term Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Docume..
More
ORDER
JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2015, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's Motion 60(b) Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition (Document No. 94, filed December 29, 2014); pro se petitioner's Motion the Term [sic] Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 95, filed February 4, 2015); and pro se petitioner's Motion to Define the Term Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 96, filed February 12, 2015);1 for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum dated April 2, 2015, IT IS ORDERED that pro se petitioner's Motion 60(b) Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the motion states a valid claim of the denial of constitutional rights or this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
FootNotes
1. Although styled as motions, pro se petitioner's Motion the Term [sic] Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 95, filed February 4, 2015), and pro se petitioner's Motion to Define the Term Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 96, filed February 12, 2015), which are nearly identical in substance, are actually explanatory submissions in further support of pro se petitioner's Motion 60(b) Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition. Nevertheless, to clear the docket, the Court DENIES the two documents styled by pro se petitioner as motions, Document No. 95 and Document No. 96.
Source: Leagle
