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.

Lawson v. Overmyer

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 19, 2014

TYREE LAWSON, Petitioner
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI FOREST M. OVERMYER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and THE ATTORNEY GENEREAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Respondents

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

NOW, this 18th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition was filed by petitioner pro se on March 4, 2010 ("Petition");[1]
(2) Memorandum in Support of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief, which memorandum was filed by petitioner pro se on May 12, 2014 ("Memorandum in Support of Petition"), together with
Exhibits A through X to the Memorandum in Support of Petition;
(3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on May 21, 2014 ("Response"), together with
Exhibits A through C to the Response;
(4) Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's May 21, 2014 Filed Response and Request for Issuance of Habeas Relief, which opposition was filed June 13, 2014 ("Petitioner's Opposition to Response"), together with
Exhibits A through P to Petitioner's Opposition to Response;
(5) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated July 28, 2014 and filed July 29, 2014 ("R&R");
(6) Petitioner's Objection to the Report & Recommendation, which objections were filed August 15, 2014 ("Petitioner's Objections"), together with
Exhibits A through V to Petitioner's Objections; and
(7) Application for Correction of Omitted & or Unintelligentable (sic) Assertion, which application was filed by petitioner pro se on August 28, 2014 ("Petitioner's Application");

it appearing that Petitioner's Application seeks to make one amendment and one correction to Petitioner's Objections; it further appearing that the purported objections of petitioner to Magistrate Judge Hey's Report and Recommendation are, with the exception of the objection discussed in footnote 3 below, a restatement of arguments raised by petitioner in the Petition, Memorandum in Support of Petition, and Petitioner's Opposition to Response; it further appearing, after de novo review of this matter, [2] that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hey correctly determined the pertinent legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Application is granted and Petitioner's Objections are deemed amended and corrected as provided in Petitioner's Application.[3]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objections of petitioner to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hey are sustained in part and overruled in part.[4]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's objections are sustained to the extent that he objects to the statement on page 1 of the Report and Recommendation that his underlying convictions arose from a shooting incident which occurred on June 10, 2006. The word "June" in the final line of body text on page 1 of the Report and Recommendation is replaced with the word "July".

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's objections are overruled in all other respects.

IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hey is approved and adopted with the above modification.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within Petition is dismissed without prejudice for petitioner file a petition for habeas corpus relief after he has exhausted his state-court remedies under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner has not exhausted his available state-court remedies, and no reasonable jurist could find this ruling debatable, a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Production of Discovery and All Other Related Materials, which motion was filed by petitioner pro se April 11, 2014, is dismissed without prejudice for petitioner to seek such discovery by motion if and when he initiates a federal habeas corpus proceeding after he exhausts his state-court remedies.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes.


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.