ACOSTA v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI FOREST et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERTHAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REOPEN THIS CASE FOR PURPOSES OF CONSIDERING MR. ACOSTA'S MOTION 29 . MR. ACOSTA'S MOTION IS DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS RIGHT TO FILE WITH THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AN APPLICATION TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED PURSUANT TO 28 USC SEC. 2253(C) BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD NOT DEBATE THE PROPRIETY OF THIS RULING. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN F MURPHY ON 2/7/24. 2/7/24 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAIME ACOSTA
v.
SUPERINTENDENT SCI FOREST,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF BERKS, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION
:
: NO. 20-1305
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of February 2024, upon considering petitioner Jaime Acosta’s
motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (DI 29),
defendants’ response in opposition (DI 30), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
memorandum, it is ORDERED:
1.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to reopen this case for purposes of considering

Mr. Acosta’s motion (DI 29).
2.

Mr. Acosta’s motion is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction without

prejudice to his 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).
3.

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

because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
4.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close this case.

______________________
MURPHY, J.