RIVERA v. HARRY

• Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 30, 2024
• Docket: 2:20-cv-03990
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

DIEGO RIVERA, CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, NO. 20-3990-KSM v.

LAUREL HARRY, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER AND NOW this 30th day of September, 2024, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Richard A. Lloret (Doc. No. 44), Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 45), and Respondents’ opposition brief (Doc. No. 47), it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.1 4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Karen Spencer Marston ______________________________ KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.

1 Because jurists of reason would not debate the procedural or substantive dispositions of Petitioner’s claims, no certificate of appealability should be granted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . . When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”).