SANCHEZ v. WETZEL et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED; PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ARE DENIED; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 11/17/16. 11/18/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARLOS A. SANCHEZ
Petitioner,
v.
1

MICHAEL OVERMYER, et al.
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 15-5303

ORDER
This 17th day of November 2016, upon careful and independent consideration of Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se
petitioner, Carolos Sanchez, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey, dated October 31, 2016, IT IS ORDERED as
follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;
3.

Petitioner’s requests for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing are
DENIED; and

1

As noted by Magistrate Judge Hey, Petitioner named as the primary respondent the
Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel. The proper respondent, however, is the
officer with current custody of the habeas petitioner. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases (requiring the state officer with current custody to be named as the
respondent). Mr. Sanchez is currently housed at the State Correctional Institution Forest in
Marienville, Pennsylvania (“SCI Forest”). According to the Department of Corrections website,
the current superintendent of SCI Forest is Michael Overmyer. Therefore, I follow Magistrate
Judge Hey in naming Mr. Overmyer as the primary respondent.

4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate
the propriety of 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 (2000).

/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Judge