GONZALEZ v. SMITH
This text of GONZALEZ v. SMITH (GONZALEZ v. SMITH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUIS GONZALEZ, CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner, NO. 20-2844-KSM v.
BARRY SMITH, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2023, upon consideration of Petitioner Luis Gonzalez’s Application to File a Second or Successive Motion to Vacate Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (Doc. No. 55) and Respondents’ response (Doc. No. 57), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED that Gonzalez’s motion (Doc. No. 55) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Court finds no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/KAREN SPENCER MARSTON
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
1 Because jurists of reason would not debate this Court’s disposition of Defendant’s motion, no certificate of appealability should be granted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
GONZALEZ v. SMITH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-smith-paed-2023.