LEAK v. CLARK et al

Filing 87

MEMORANDUM ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION (DOC. NO. 84 ) IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO LEAK'S RIGHT TO FILE WITH THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AN APPLICATION TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/13/22. 9/14/22 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE AND COUNSEL; E-MAILED.(amas)

Case 2:17-cv-02608-WB Document 87 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM LEAK,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT
MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CV-2608

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of September 2022, upon consideration of Petitioner William
Leak’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 84), it is
ORDERED that:
1.

The Motion is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without

prejudice to Leak’s right to file with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit an
application to file a second or successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
2.

A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this Court’s procedural ruling with
respect to these claims. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.
___________________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.