VILLANUEVA v. MS. LUTHER et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 5 , IS ADOPTED IN PART, AS PROVIDED IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ECF NO. 1 , IS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, SEE BELL V. KINSTON REHAB. CTR., NO. 11-41, 2011 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 11531, AT *2 (D. DEL. FEB. 7, 2011) (SCHILLER, J.) (CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSU ANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AFTER DISMISSING THE § 2254 PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION); AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 5/20/16. 5/23/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE. (mas, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUAN M. VILLANUEVA,
SUPERINTENDENT LUTHER, DISTRICT :
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
HARRISBURG, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5 – Adopted in Part
AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2016, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum
issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5, is ADOPTED in part, as provided
in the accompanying Memorandum;
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania;
There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability, see Bell v.
Kinston Rehab. Ctr., No. 11-41, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11531, at *2 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2011)
(Schiller, J.) (concluding that there was no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability
after dismissing the § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction); and
The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge
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?