STEWART v. BRITTAIN et al

Filing 52

ORDER THAT PETITIONER DONALD STEWART HAS FILED ANOTHER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 48 ). AS WITH HIS PRIOR MOTIONS, THE CURRENT MOTION IS DENIED AS MOOT BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS ALREADY PAID HIS FILING FEE (ECF NOS. 10 , [1 1]); PETITIONER DONALD STEWARTS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHAL L ISSUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(1)(A) BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS [NOT] MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT[,] NOR UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(2), SINCE HE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND MY ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS DEBATABLE OR WRONG. SLACK V. MCDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); SEE UNITED STATES V. CEPERO, 224 F.3D 256, 263-63 (3D CIR. 2000), ABROGATED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY GONZALEZ V. THALER, 565 U.S. 134 (2012); AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS FILE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 9/9/22. 9/12/22 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mas)

Case 2:18-cv-01779-JLS Document 52 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONALD STEWART,
Petitioner,
v.
KATHY BRITTAIN et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1779

ORDER
AND NOW this 9th day of September, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner Donald Stewart has filed another Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 48). As with his prior motions, the current motion is DENIED
AS MOOT because Petitioner has already paid his filing fee (ECF Nos. 10, 11);
2. Petitioner Donald Stewart’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A.
Lloret is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
4. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because
“the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right[,]” nor under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that
“reasonable jurists” would find my “assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see United
States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 263-63 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds
by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012); and

Case 2:18-cv-01779-JLS Document 52 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 2

5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file closed.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, J.