From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soto v. Wynder

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 30, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-4720 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008)

Summary

adopting a report and recommendation dismissing the petitioner's Section 2254 petition as premature where, as here, the petitioner's PCRA claim was concurrently seeking allowance of appeal before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Summary of this case from Stultz v. Barkley

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-4720.

January 30, 2008


ORDER


AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2008, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa, and the objections filed by Petitioner, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED without prejudice.
3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.


Summaries of

Soto v. Wynder

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 30, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-4720 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008)

adopting a report and recommendation dismissing the petitioner's Section 2254 petition as premature where, as here, the petitioner's PCRA claim was concurrently seeking allowance of appeal before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Summary of this case from Stultz v. Barkley

adopting a report and recommendation dismissing the petitioner's Section 2254 petition as premature where, as here, the petitioner's PCRA claim was concurrently seeking allowance of appeal before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Summary of this case from Gillette v. Cameron
Case details for

Soto v. Wynder

Case Details

Full title:ANGEL SOTO, Petitioner, v. JAMES T. WYNDER, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 30, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-4720 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008)

Citing Cases

Stultz v. Barkley

Although Order 218 does not require that a petitioner seek an appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, once…

Steckley v. Cameron

However, once he did, the exhaustion requirement applies. See Andrews v. Sauers, No. 11-1921, 2011 WL…