Opinion
Civil Action 19-1263
03-09-2022
HAKIM JIGGETTS, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI PHOENIX, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
AND NOW, this 9th day of March 2022, upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [Doc. No. 31], the Respondents' response thereto, and Petitioner's reply, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment” [Doc. No. 31] is DENIED.
2. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
For the reasons presented in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, there is no basis for concluding that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).
3. Petitioner's “Motion to Strike Response” [Doc. No. 36] is DENIED.It is so ORDERED.
Although styled as a motion to strike the Response [Doc. No. 35], the substance of this filing constitutes a reply brief. As the Court interprets pro se filings liberally, the Court considered the facts and arguments presented in this filing in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion as though Petitioner had filed a reply brief.