PETERSON v. BRENNAN, et al

Filing 126

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REOPEN JUDGMENT UNDER FRCP 60(b) IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 6/9/15. 6/11/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD C. PETERSON,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
WARDEN EDWARD BRENNAN,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF PHILADEPHIA, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

NO. 97-3477

ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of “Motion to Reopen
Judgment Under F.R.C.P. 60(b)(6)” filed by pro se petitioner, Edward C. Peterson (Document
No. 124, filed December 3, 2014), for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum
dated June 9, 2015, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

“Motion to Reopen Judgment Under F.R.C.P. 60(b)(6)” filed by pro se petitioner,

Edward C. Peterson, is DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED; and,
2.

A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not

debate the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.