YOUNG v. CLARK et al
ORDERED THAT PETITIONER'S MOTIN FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CAPTION (DOC. NO. 15) IS GRANTED AND PETITIONER'S DECLARATION (DOC. NO.12) SHALL BE RE-CAPTIONED AS AN ANSWER; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS PPROVED AND ADOPTED AS MODIFIED BY THE MEMORA NDUM OPINION ACCOMPANYING THIS ORDER; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE AND THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 4) IS DENIED; PETITIONERS'SSUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS MOOT; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 11/14/17. 11/15/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED AND FAXED.(jpd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIE MACK YOUNG,
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2017, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), the Respondent’s Response (Doc. No. 7), Petitioner’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4), the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States
Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (Doc. No. 9), Petitioner’s Declaration (Doc. No. 12),
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Caption (Doc. No. 13), and the state court
record, it is ORDERED that:
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Caption (Doc. No. 13) is
GRANTED and Petitioner’s Declaration (Doc. No. 12) shall be re-captioned as
The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED as modified
by the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order;
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice and there is no
probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability;
Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED;
Petitioner’s supplemental Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 14) is
DISMISSED as MOOT;1 and
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.
On October 16, 2017, Petitioner filed a new “Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on
Behalf of a Person in Custody Pursuant to the Judgment of a State Court,” purportedly seeking to
add a habeas claim alleging “Plain Error Fed. R. Evid. Rule 103(d).” As Petitioner’s original
habeas petition is untimely, any efforts to amend that petition and add new claims are likewise
untimely and must be dismissed as moot.
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?