HILL v. PRICE

E.D. Pennsylvania

HILL v. PRICE

DecidedFebruary 1, 2022

Docket2:98-cv-01769-PBT

StatusUnknown

This text of HILL v. PRICE (HILL v. PRICE) 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. PRICE, (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DWAYNE J. HILL, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-CV-1769 : JAMES PRICE, et al., : Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2022, in consideration of Petitioner Dwayne J. Hill’s “Motion to Modify Judgment” which seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 45), it is ORDERED that: 1. 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). 2. 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). BY THE COURT:

/s/Petrese B. Tucker ___________________________________ PETRESE B. TUCKER, 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

DWAYNE J. HILL, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-CV-1769 : JAMES PRICE, et al., : Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2022, in consideration of Petitioner Dwayne J. Hill’s “Motion to Modify Judgment” which seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 45), it is ORDERED that: 1. 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). 2. 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). BY THE COURT:

/s/Petrese B. Tucker ___________________________________ PETRESE B. TUCKER, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HILL v. PRICE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-price-paed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack