RODRIGUEZ v. MAHALLY et al
Filing
16
ORDER AS FOLLOWS: (1) THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; (2) THE MOTION TO STAY CONSIDERATION OF THE HABEAS PETITION (ECF #6)IS GRANTED; (3) THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS PLACED IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS; (4) PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE COURT PROCEDDINGS SO THE HABEAS PETITION MAY PROCEED IN THIS COURT; (5) THE ORDER REQUIRING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO ANSWER THE HABEAS PETITION (ECF #7) IS VACATED AND THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #15) IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 3/5/18. 3/6/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(rv)
Case 2:17-cv-02160-ER Document 13-1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1of1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION
v.
LAWREN CE MAHALLY, et al.
~
NOW, this
A
independ~nt
S
NO. 17-2160
ORDER
day of
tJl~;e,,.e,~
,
2017, upon careful and
consideration of the motion to amend, the petition for writ of habeas corpus,
the respotjses to both, and after review of the Report and~mendation of United
States
Ma~istrate
Judge Elizabeth T. Hey, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
I
The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
2.
I
The motion to stay consideration of the habeas petition is GRANTED.
3.
I
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is placed in suspense until the
conclusioh of the state court proceedings.
4.
I
Petitioner and Respondents shall notify the court within thirty days of the
conclusioh of the state proceedings so the habeas petition may proceed in this court.
5.
I
The Order requiring the District Attorney to answer the habeas petition
(Doc. 7) lls VACATED.
BY THE COURT:
(\ (__ /. {;t--.S
l
iDuARDO
CD ~r\~J ~tY
!)a.u..:f"
~u~Jh\.
l;-S'
~~T.
..
c. RoBRE o, J.
'Y- '{l\IU C .( J.-c. Ir) \s
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?