FURMAN v. SAUERS et al

Filing 67

ORDER THAT PRO SE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR RELIEF SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF PURSUANT TO F. R. CIV. P. 60(B)(6) & (7) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE THE PROPRIETY OF THIS COURTS PROCEDURAL RULING WITH RESPECT TO PRO SE PETITIONERS CLAIMS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 6/4/21. 6/4/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. PRO SE PETITIONER NOT MAILED. (va, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CERRONE FURMAN,

CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,

v.
DEBRA K. SAUERS, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

NO. 11-4342

ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2021, upon consideration of Pro Se Petitioner’s
Application for Relief Seeking Equitable Relief Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)[&](7)
(Document No. 51, filed July 20, 2018), Response to Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant
to Rule 60(b) (Document No. 55, filed February 12, 2021), and Reply to Respondent’s Response
to Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b) & (d) (Document No. 65, filed May
3, 2021), for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum dated June 4, 2021, IT IS
ORDERED that Pro Se Petitioner’s Application for Relief Seeking Equitable Relief Pursuant to
F. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)[&](7) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue because
reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling with respect to
pro se petitioner’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.