IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 27, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JAMIL MOHD EL-GHAZALI
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pollak, J.
The court is in receipt of two letters from petitioner Jamil Mohd El-Ghazali stating that he has not received, or, alternatively, not timely received, recent orders regarding his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas corpus petition (docket no. 72) and his motion for settlement (docket no. 79). The court denied the habeas petition because it was procedurally deficient and untimely (see Order of Nov. 25, 2008, docket no. 81); the court denied the motion for settlement because El-Ghazali averred no legal basis for his requested relief (see Order of Oct. 27, 2008, docket no. 80).
Insofar as El-Ghazali's letters represent requests for reconsideration of either of these orders, such requests will be denied. Petitioner's habeas petition was deficient and he was placed on notice of the fact twice by this court in short succession (see Order of Aug. 7, 2007, docket no. 75; Order of Sept. 27, 2007, docket no. 77). He never corrected the deficiency; he did respond to the August 7, 2007 order, but his response (docket no. 1. 76) did not cure the deficiency. El-Ghazali's request for settlement of his restitution and special assessments rested on no legal foundation, and he has advanced no legal grounds for such relief in his recent correspondence with the court.
In his letters, El-Ghazali also lodges complaints regarding alleged mishandling of his mail by SCI Graterford, an institution managed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Despite El-Ghazali's assertions otherwise, these allegations are not relevant to this court's earlier decisions regarding his habeas petition and motion for settlement.
An appropriate order accompanies this Memorandum.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.