Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

James Mario Pridgen v. Shannon and the District Attorney of the County of Lancaster and the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

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


March 21, 2013

JAMES MARIO PRIDGEN, PETITIONER,
v.
SHANNON AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER 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 21st day of March, 2013, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's 60(b) Motion Alleging That the Federal Courts Misapplied the Federal Statute of Limitations Set Out in § 2244(d) (Document No. 53, filed October 11, 2012), Respondent District Attorney of Lancaster County's Answer to Petitioner's [sic] for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 56, filed December 10, 2012), and Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 57, filed December 20, 2012), for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated March 21, 2013, IT IS ORDERED that pro se petitioner's 60(b) Motion Alleging That the Federal Courts Misapplied the Federal Statute of Limitations Set Out in § 2244(d) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

Hon. Jan E. DuBois

20130321

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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