MURRAY v. JOHNSON, et al

Filing 42

ORDER THAT 1. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL REOPEN THIS CASE; 2. THE "SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PROC. 60(B)(6), ENTERED 09/28/2001, DISMISSING HABEAS C ORPUS PETITION AS UNTIMELY" (DOC. NO. 35) IS DENIED; 3. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; AND 4. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/27/23. 3/27/23 ENTERED AND COPIES (NOT MAILED TO PRO SE) AND E-MAILED.(er)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRAY MURRAY,
Petitioner,
v.
PHILLIP JOHNSON; THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA, LYNN ABRAHAM;
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
MICHAEL FISHER,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-4903

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2023, after considering the “Second Motion for
Reconsideration of the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6), Entered 09/28/2001,
Dismissing Habeas Corpus Petition as Untimely” filed by the pro se petitioner, Bray Murray (Doc.
No. 35); and for the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The clerk of court shall REOPEN this case;

2.

The “Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 60(b)(6), Entered 09/28/2001, Dismissing Habeas Corpus Petition as Untimely” (Doc. No.
35) is DENIED;
3.

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue; and

4.

The clerk of court shall MARK this case as CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.