HOOVER v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS PA et al

Filing 13

ORDERED THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTION IS OVERRULED; THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES, INCLUDING STATISTICS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 5/15/18. 5/17/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLAINTIFF AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEVILAYSHA MAY HOOVER,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI
CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-2665

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Levilaysha May Hoover (Doc. No. 1), the Response thereto
(Doc. No. 6), Magistrate Judge Thomas Rueter’s Report & Recommendation (Doc. No. 7), and
Petitioner’s Objection to the Report & Recommendation (Doc. No. 11), it is ORDERED that:
1.

The Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. No. 11) is OVERRULED. 1

2.

The Report & Recommendation (Doc. No. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

3.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice without an evidentiary hearing.

4.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability. 2

1

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Rueter that Ms. Hoover’s petition is untimely
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See Report & Recommendation at 5. Ms. Hoover’s conviction
became final in 2010, and her state post-conviction proceedings concluded in 2014. (A
successive, untimely state post-conviction petition concluded in March 2016.) She failed to file
her federal habeas petition until June 2017, outside the one-year limitations period set by
§ 2244(d).
Further, the Court agrees that Ms. Hoover has not alleged facts sufficient to show that she
is entitled to equitable tolling. See Report & Recommendation at 6–8.
2

A certificate of appealability may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable

5.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes, including
statistics.

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 230
(3d Cir. 2004). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Rueter that there is no probable cause to
issue such a certificate in this action.