LEWIS v. TENNIS et al

Filing 26

ORDER THAT LEWIS'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER-RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE FOR THE GROUNDS WHICH THE COURT DENIES RELIEF BECAUSE REA SONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE THIS COURT'S PROCEDURAL RULINGS AND BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT MADE SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 6/17/10. 6/17/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _____________________________________ L EO N LEWIS P e t it i o n e r , v. F R A N K L IN J. TENNIS, THE DISTRICT A T T O R N E Y OF PHILADELPHIA, and T H E ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ST A T E OF PENNSYLVANIA, R e s p o n d e n ts . _____________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : : : : C IV IL ACTION

N O . 08-4498

ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of Leon Lewis's Motion for Relief From Judgment or Order ­ Reconsideration (Document No. 24, filed May 24, 2010), and the documents attached thereto, IT IS ORDERED that Lewis's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order ­ Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. That portion of Lewis's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order ­ Reconsideration which relates to the Court's ruling of May 12, 2010 that Ground One of Lewis's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is procedurally barred is DENIED. 2. That portion of Lewis's Motion for Relief from Judgement or Order ­ Reconsideration which relates to the Court's ruling of May 12, 2010 that Grounds Two, Three and Four of Lewis's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody are procedurally barred is GRANTED. After review of Grounds Two, Three and Four on the merits, those grounds of Lewis's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody are DENIED.

-1-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue for the grounds on which the Court denies relief because reasonable jurists would not debate this Court's procedural rulings and because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jan E. DuBois JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

-2-