LEAK v. CLARK

• Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 28, 2020
• Docket: 2:17-cv-02608
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

WILLIAM LEAK, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL CLARK, NO. 17-2608 et al., Defendants.

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2020, upon careful and independent consideration of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 50), and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice (ECF No. 66) and Petitioner’s Objections thereto (ECF No. 76), IT IS HERBEY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; 3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and 4. The Clerk of the Court SHALL MARK this case closed for statistical purposes. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 78 & 79), IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions are DENIED.1 BY THE COURT:

/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J. _______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

1 Petitioner filed these motions pro se, seeking to compel his counsel to investigate and brief additional issues. It is well established that legal strategy is determined by the attorney, not the client. See, e.g., Gov’t of V.I. v. Weatherwax, 77 F.3d 1425, 1433-34 (3d Cir. 1996) (recognizing counsel’s ultimate authority to make strategic decisions regarding motions and defenses). The Motions are therefore denied.