Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sherwood v. Beard

August 18, 2010

BRENTT M. SHERWOOD, PETITIONER,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, COMMISSIONER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LOUIS B. FOLINO, THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GREENE; AND FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT ROCKVIEW,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner's motion for in forma pauperis status (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; and,

2. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 1) is GRANTED and the Capital Habeas Corpus Units of the Federal Public Defender Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Federal Community Defender for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are hereby appointed as federal habeas corpus counsel to represent Petitioner in this proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2).

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the following Schedule for the remainder of this proceeding:

FILING OF THE PETITION

1. Habeas Corpus Petition

Petitioner shall file his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on or before February 24, 2011. Petitioner shall file a supporting memorandum of law no later than sixty (60) days after the date of the filing of the petition. A courtesy copy shall be submitted to the Court. Each claim for relief must be numbered separately and must include the following information:

a) The specific provision(s) of the United States Constitution upon which Petitioner relies as a basis for relief;

b) Whether the claim has been exhausted in the state courts, with specific citation to the state court record;

c) Whether the claim is procedurally defaulted;

d) Whether Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing regarding the claim and, if so, whether such a hearing is permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2);

e) Whether federal review of the claim is governed by the standard of review in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

f) Whether federal review of the claim is barred under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Teague v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.