WEST v. GIROUX et al

Filing 11

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETIITON FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THE CASE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 10/10/17. 10/11/17 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
RAYMOND WEST
Petitioner,

v.

.

B:~ ti:~ »J!
Frn;~~;~g~,lcfv1L ACTION NO. 16-1185
.

oc·f: 1o 2u11

NANCY GIROUX, et al.
KATc 81"11 11.111"' , C'1erk
,,:R. i.t'~lfl!1N
,,1.;
R espon d ents.ax
.:
Oep. Clerk
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2017, upon careful and independent consideration
of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and all related filings, and upon review of the Report
and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, to
which no objections have been filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED 1;

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

and without an evidentiary hearing;
3.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability2 ; and

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

EN~~~El~DERED.
OCT 11 2017
CLERK OF COURT
1

As set forth in the R&R, Raymond West did not exhaust the remedies available in the state court, as he
filed here while the PCRA petition was pending, and the several years it took to resolve the PCRA petition was not
so extreme as to excuse the failure to exhaust. After the PCRA petition was dismissed on February 17, 2017, Mr.
West did not appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. More importantly, the petition in this Court is untimely,
having been filed nearly five years late (Mr. West's apparent status as a fugitive meant he failed to pursue direct
appeals or to file a timely petition in federal court, and he did not promptly pursue his rights once in custody).
2

There is no basis for concluding that "reasonable jurists could debate whether ... the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).