DAVIS v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 23

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE AND DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND THERE IS NO CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 5/4/16. 5/5/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETTIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH DAVIS,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-5113

v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2016, upon careful and independent consideration of
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on October 26, 2015 (ECF No. 3),1 the Response to
the Petition (ECF No. 15), and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Henry S. Perkin (ECF No. 18) and Petitioner’s Objections and Interrogatories2 (ECF
Nos. 20–21), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED without prejudice and
DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; and
1

As noted by the Court’s October 1, 2015 Order, when Petitioner initially filed his Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), he did not use the standard 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 form as has been required by this
Court since October 2009. (See ECF No. 2.) Petitioner was provided with a blank copy of the Court’s current
standard form for habeas corpus relief, which he completed and returned to the Clerk of Court for filing on October
26, 2015. (See ECF No. 3.)
2

Petitioner’s objections contend, inter alia, that: (1) “the Magistrate should be removed and his R&R striken
[sic] from the record, as a consequence of his evident bias and conspiracy with the Philadelphia District Attorney’s
Office . . . and the Magistrate is also a liar”; (2) “the issue of hybrid representation, is a constructed farce by both the
Commonwealth Court and this Court”; (3) “the Exhaustion requirement is used as a hoax so that the District
Attorney can become better prepared win [sic] the case”; and (3) “the exhaustion requirement has been used by the
Third Circuit Court as a scam to promote the Commonwealth’s interest, by covertly sabotaging the writ of habeas
corpus protections.” (Pet’r’s Objs. at 1–4, ECF No. 20.) The Court has thoroughly reviewed Petitioner’s objections
and finds them meritless.

1

4. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.

2