Stubbs v. Kauffman
ORDER DEEMING petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 WITHDRAWN w/out prejudice & directing Clrk of Ct to COSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/6/18. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HENRY CHRISTOPHER STUBBS,
KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 1:18-CV-128
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2018, upon consideration of the election
form (Doc. 6)1 filed by petitioner, Henry Christopher Stubbs, III, in which he elects
to withdraw his habeas petition with the intent of filing an all-inclusive petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Because construing and ruling upon a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may
preclude Stubbs from filing a second or successive petition for writ of habeas
corpus, he was afforded the opportunity to have his petition construed and ruled
upon under section 2254 or to withdraw the petition. (Doc. 5). See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b) (providing that a “second or successive habeas corpus application” under
section 2254 may be filed only in limited circumstances and with approval of the
court of appeals); United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 649 (3d Cir. 1999)
(instructing district courts to provide notice to pro se petitioners of potential
ramifications of filing petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Mason v. Myers, 208 F.3d
414, 417-18 (3d Cir. 2000) (applying Miller requirements to section 2254 habeas
petitions as well as to section 2255 petitions); but cf. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225
(2004) (disapproving of the requirement that district courts give habeas petitioners
warnings related to exhaustion and statute of limitations).
The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DEEMED withdrawn
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?