RUSH v. BEARD et al
ORDER THAT GROUNDS TWO (a) AND (b), THREE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, TEN, ELEVEN, THIRTEEN, FOURTEEN, FIFTEEN AND SIXTEEN OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 USC, SECTION 2254 (ECF NO. 1-1) ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS PROCEDURALLY DEFAULT ED; GROUND THIRTEEN IS ALTERNATIVELY DENIED ON THE MERITS; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT GROUNDS ONE AND FOUR ARE DENIED ON THE MERITS AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT GROUND NINE IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. IT IS ORDERED THAT A PRE-HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL WILL BE HELD WITH COUNSE ON 9/25/18 AT 11:00 A.M., TO DETERMINE THE LOGISTICS OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ ON 8/1/18. 8/1/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Civil Action No. 08-4843
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion filed herewith:
IT IS therefore on this 1st day of August 2018,
ORDERED that Grounds Two (a) and (b), Three, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, Thirteen,
Fourteen, Fifteen and Sixteen of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF No. 1-1) are dismissed with prejudice as procedurally defaulted; Ground Thirteen is
alternatively denied on the merits; and it is further
ORDERED that Grounds One and Four are denied on the merits; and it is further
ORDERED that Ground Nine is held in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); and it is further
ORDERED that a pre-hearing telephone conference call will be held with counsel on
September 25, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., to determine the logistics of the evidentiary hearing, which will
be held before the undersigned in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ
United States District Judge
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?