HANDFIELD v. GARMAN et al

Filing 59

ORDER THAT 1. PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B) (ECF NO. 53) IS DENIED; 2. PETITIONER'S AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B)(1) (ECF NO. 54) IS DENIED; 3. PETIT IONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 52) IS DENIED; AND 4. THERE IS NO CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 1/25/24. 1/25/24 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(er)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EARL C. HANDFIELD II,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-1634

MARK GARMAN, et al,
Respondents.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner’s Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
(ECF No. 53) is DENIED;
2. Petitioner’s Amended Motion for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(1) (ECF No. 54) is DENIED;
3. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 52) is DENIED;
and
4. There is no cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, J.