SIV v. SUPERINTENDENT MASON

• Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 11, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-03632
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

SOPHAL SIV : Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION v. : NO. 20-3632

SUPERINTENDENT MASON; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE : COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; and, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA : Respondents.

ORDER AND NOW this 10th day of August 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of: Sophal Siv’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 6); Commonwealth’s Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 16); the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret (ECF No. 23); Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 24); and, the Commonwealth’s Response to Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 31), it is hereby ORDERED as follo ws: 1. In accordance with this Court’s accompanying Memorandum, Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 24) are DENIED;

2. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 6) is DENIED; 4. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because “the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[,]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable jurists” would find my “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012); and, 5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II J.