GOODE v. RUSSELL et al
ORDER THAT THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 2 ) IS DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE IN PART AS FOLLOWS: A. THE HABEAS PETITION, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PETITIONER ASSERTS CLAIMS FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND B. THE HABEAS PETITION, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PETITIONER RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS FOR VIOLATIONS OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THE COURT DECLINES TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 7/29/22. 7/29/22 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(mas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KYLE RUSSELL, JOSEPH SNELL, and
CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-1320
AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2022, after considering the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by the pro se petitioner, James Goode (Doc. No. 2) and
Goode’s response to the court’s July 12, 2022 Order (Doc. No. 7); and for the reasons set forth in
the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 2) is DIMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE IN PART and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE IN PART as follows:
The habeas petition, to the extent that the petitioner asserts claims for denial
of access to the courts and racial discrimination, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
The habeas petition, to the extent that the petitioner raises constitutional
claims for violations of his right to a speedy trial, is DISMISSED WITHOUT
The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and
The clerk of court shall MARK this matter as CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.
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?