KEEL et al v. CHUNG et al
ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING MR. KEEL'S FILINGS, WHICH THE COURT HAS CONSTRUED AS AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 1/26/17. 1/26/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN. (pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JESSE LEE KEEL, III
JAN =2 6 '2017
KATE BAl;lKMAN, Clerk
A.D.A. JESSICA CHUNG, et al. By
• Dep. Clerk NO. 16-4013
thide:)da~ of January, 2017, upon consideration of plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 12) and his exhibits (ECF No. 13), which the Court has construed
together as a motion for reconsideration and amended complaint, it is ORDERED that:
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED for the purpose of considering Mr.
Keel's filings, which the Court has construed as an amended complaint.
The amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for the reasons discussed in the Court's memorandum. Mr. Keel may
not file an amended complaint in this case. However, any claims that are currently barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) are dismissed without prejudice to Mr. Keel filing a
new civil action against an appropriate defendant or defendants in the event his convictions and
sentence are overturned or otherwise called into question.
The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
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?