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)

Download PDF
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?