ELLIOTT v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS et al

Filing 41

ORDERED THAT THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR ALL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 10/26/17. 10/27/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NATHANIEL L. ELLIOTT, Petitioner : : : vs. : : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, et al., : Respondents : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-5860 ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and attachments; the Petitioner’s affidavit/brief; the Respondents’ response thereto; the Petitioner’s reply brief; and all available state court records; and after review of the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED; 1 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 1 The petitioner has filed lengthy Objections and an “Amendment of Objections” to Judge Strawbridge’s Report and Recommendation. See Document #37. Upon de novo review, I find that these Objections are meritless. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s many challenges to the R&R, there is one fact which cannot be challenged, and that is that his claims are unexhausted. The petitioner failed to appeal the Parole Board’s decision to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania or to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Because he is no longer able to bring a timely claim in state court, I must find that Judge Strawbridge properly found that the petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Finally, there is no basis to excuse this procedural default. The Petitioner has not shown a cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrated that failure to consider the claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 (1991). Accordingly, I will approve and adopt Judge Strawbridge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismiss this petition. 4. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, or demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, C. 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?