SCHULTZ v. WENEROWICZ

E.D. Pennsylvania

SCHULTZ v. WENEROWICZ

DecidedNovember 8, 2021

Docket2:13-cv-00177

StatusUnknown

This text of SCHULTZ v. WENEROWICZ (SCHULTZ v. WENEROWICZ) 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

SCHULTZ v. WENEROWICZ, (E.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

PHILIP SCHULTZ, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-177 : MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, et al., : Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of October 2021, in consideration of Petitioner Philip Schultz’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 48), it is ORDERED that: 1. The Motion is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Schultz’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/ANITA B. BRODY, J.______ ANITA B. BRODY, 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

PHILIP SCHULTZ, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-177 : MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, et al., : Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of October 2021, in consideration of Petitioner Philip Schultz’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 48), it is ORDERED that: 1. The Motion is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Schultz’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/ANITA B. BRODY, J.______ ANITA B. BRODY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SCHULTZ v. WENEROWICZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-wenerowicz-paed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack