From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randolph v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2, 2012
No. 1:06-CV-0901 (M.D. Pa. May. 2, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1:06-CV-0901

05-02-2012

SAMUEL RANDOLPH, Petitioner v. JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; LOUIS B. FOLINO, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Greene; and MARIROSA LAMAS, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Respondents


(Judge Conner)


THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE


ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the pro se motion for reconsideration (Doc. 64) of the court's order issued on April 10, 2012, that denied petitioner's pro se motion to appoint new counsel and placed the matter on hold pending its disposition in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania (see Doc. 63), and noting that petitioner is represented by counsel in these federal habeas proceedings, thus the court will not accept for filing any pro se motions or correspondence from petitioner, rather, any motions or correspondence filed on behalf of petitioner must be done so by counsel of record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the pro se motion for reconsideration (Doc. 64) is DENIED, without prejudice, as a pro se filing.

___________________________

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Randolph v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2, 2012
No. 1:06-CV-0901 (M.D. Pa. May. 2, 2012)
Case details for

Randolph v. Wetzel

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL RANDOLPH, Petitioner v. JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary, Pennsylvania…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 2, 2012

Citations

No. 1:06-CV-0901 (M.D. Pa. May. 2, 2012)