From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Godfrey v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 25, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-150 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2008)

Summary

rejecting double jeopardy claim challenging the Board's revocation of parole and reincarceration, ". . . the law is clear that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to such proceedings."

Summary of this case from Tillery v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-150.

March 25, 2008


ORDER


AND NOW, this 25th day of March 2008, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith and petitioner's objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 26) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 27) are OVERRULED;
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (doc. no. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
4. There is no probable cause to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

In his objections, Godfrey simply reiterates the claims from his petition, which are, for the reasons explained by Judge Smith, without merit. Godfrey also argues that the Court should refuse to consider the submissions of Susan Affronti and Kevin Bradford, and also the report of Judge Smith, because none is a party in this case. While that is true, Ms. Affronti and Mr. Bradford are counsel of record for respondents. Moreover, the case was referred to Judge Smith for report and recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).See Order, November 6, 2006 (doc. no. 9).

A prisoner seeking a certificate of appealability must demonstrate "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). No basis for a certificate of appealability exists in this case, as the petitioner is unable to meet this standard.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Godfrey v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 25, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-150 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2008)

rejecting double jeopardy claim challenging the Board's revocation of parole and reincarceration, ". . . the law is clear that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to such proceedings."

Summary of this case from Tillery v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
Case details for

Godfrey v. Diguglielmo

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK GODFREY, a/k/a Thurman D. Nelson, a/k/a Darryl Sanders…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 25, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-150 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2008)

Citing Cases

Tillery v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only…