IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 6, 2011
LOUIS FOLINO, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI-GREENE,: AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. Dubois, J.
ORDER AND NOW this 6th day of December, 2011, upon consideration of the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner, Keith Alexander (Document No. 1, filed December 6, 2010), the related submissions of the parties, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate David R. Strawbridge dated September 27, 2011 (Document No. 17), and Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Document No. 20, filed October 17, 2011), IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge dated September 27, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED ;
2. The Objections filed by petitioner, Keith Alexander, are OVERRULED on the ground that the issues raised in the Objections are addressed in the Report and Recommendation which is approved and adopted by the Court;
3. The Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by petitioner, Keith Alexander, is DENIED WITHOUT
an EVIDENTIARY HEARING ; and,
4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Keith Alexander's Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Document No. 19, filed October 12, 2011) is
DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Explanation and
Order of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge dated
January 24, 2011, in which he denied a similar motion. With respect to
this ruling, the Court notes that appointment of counsel is
appropriate in a habeas corpus matter only when the "interests of
justice . . . require" that representation be provided. See
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). This Court, after reviewing the
Motion and the record in this case, concludes that the interests of
justice do not require appointment of counsel to address the issues
raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that
the petition fails to raise any claim entitling petitioner to habeas
BY THE COURT:
Jan E. DuBois
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.