LAIRD v. WETZEL et al

Filing 53

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S CONSOLIDATED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE WHETHER THE CONSOLIDATED PETITI ON FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW STATES A VALID CLAIM OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THIS COURT'S PROCEDURAL RULINGS WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS CLAIM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/18/16. 8/19/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL AND COPY TO LEGAL.(jaa, ) Modified on 8/19/2016 (jaa, ). Modified on 8/19/2016 (jaa, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD ROLAND LAIRD, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION v. JOHN E. WETZEL, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, LOUIS FOLINO, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Greene, MARIROSA LAMAS, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents. NO. 11-1916 ORDER AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of petitioner’s Consolidated Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Document No. 39, filed February 19, 2016), respondents’ Answer to Consolidated Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Document No. 42, filed April 19, 2016), and petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Answer to Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Consolidated Memorandum of Law (Document No. 51, filed June 24, 2016), based on the reasons stated in the Memorandum dated August 18, 2016, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Consolidated Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED AND DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the Consolidated Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Supporting Memorandum of Law states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or this Court’s procedural rulings with respect to petitioner’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484. BY THE COURT: Hon. Jan E. DuBois DuBOIS, JAN E., J. 2

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?