CURRIN v. CAMERON et al
Filing
11
ORDER denying as moot 2 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 1-5-2015. A copy of the Order together with the Notice of Electronic Filing are being sent to Petitioner at his address of record via first class mail. (tmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN PAUL CURRIN,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
KENNETH R. CAMERON; KATHLEEN )
KANE The Attorney General of the State of )
Pennsylvania,
)
Respondents. )
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 14-1523
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 2
ORDER
John Paul Currin (“Petitioner”) has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person In State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. At the same
time as filing the Petition, he also filed a Petition to Stay and Abey the Petition (the “Motion to
Stay”), ECF No. 2, requesting that the Court stay these proceedings pending the outcome of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on his Petition for Leave to File Nunc Pro Tunc a
Petition for Allowance of Appeal (the “Nunc Pro Tunc Petition”). In the Motion to Stay,
Petitioner represented that he filed the Motion to Stay because he was concerned about the
Petition in this Court running afoul of the statute of limitations contained in the Anti-terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act. The Respondents filed an Answer, in which they opposed the
granting of the Motion to Stay because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had already denied
Petitioner’s Nunc Pro Tunc Petition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did so on November 6,
2014. ECF No. 10-3 at 3.
In light of the foregoing, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay is DENIED as Moot.
BY THE COURT:
Date: January 5, 2015
cc:
John Paul Currin
JD-5672
SCI Houtzdale
Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?