HILL v. LANE

E.D. Pennsylvania

HILL v. LANE

DecidedFebruary 21, 2023

Docket2:17-cv-01076

StatusUnknown

This text of HILL v. LANE (HILL v. LANE) 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.

Bluebook

HILL v. LANE, (E.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHAWN HILL, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CV-1076 : JAY LANE, et al., : Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of February 2023, in consideration of Petitioner Shawn Hill’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 46), it is ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reopen this case. 2. The Motion is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Hill’s 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 Court’s procedural ruling with respect to these claims. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ___________________________________ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHAWN HILL, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CV-1076 : JAY LANE, et al., : Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of February 2023, in consideration of Petitioner Shawn Hill’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 46), it is ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reopen this case. 2. The Motion is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Hill’s 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 Court’s procedural ruling with respect to these claims. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ___________________________________ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HILL v. LANE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-lane-paed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack