NICHOLAS v. PATRICK et al
ORDER THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM DATED 5/11/15, PRO SE PETITIONER'S HAZEL-ATLAS MOTION 41 AND SUPPLEMENTAL HAZAL-ATLAS MOTION 46 ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 5/11/15. 5/13/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(gs) Modified on 5/13/2015 (gs, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LARRY D. NICHOLAS,
MR. GEORGE PATRICK, THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of pro se petitioner Larry D.
Nicholas’ Hazel-Atlas Motion (Document No. 41, filed September 17, 2014); the Government’s
Response to the Hazel-Atlas Motion (Document No. 45, filed November 25, 2014); pro se
petitioner’s Supplemental Hazel-Atlas Motion (Document No. 46, filed December 15, 2014); the
Government’s Supplemental Response to the Hazel-Atlas Motions (Document No. 52, filed
February 27, 2015); pro se petitioner’s Reply in Further Support of the Hazel-Atlas Motions
(Document No. 53, filed March 11, 2015); and pro se petitioner’s Supplemental Reply in Further
Support of the Hazel-Atlas Motions (Document No. 54, filed March 25, 2015), IT IS
ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum dated May 11, 2015,
pro se petitioner’s Hazel-Atlas Motion (Document No. 41) and Supplemental Hazel-Atlas
Motion (Document No. 46) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE on
the ground that reasonable jurists would not debate this Court’s procedural rulings with respect
to pro se petitioner’s claims or whether he has stated a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d
333, 340 (3d Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.
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?