Glushko v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
| Andrew P. Glushko |
| Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, PA State Attorney General, Kimberly A. Barkley, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John E. Wetzel, Kevin Bishop, Pennsylvania State Police and Chief Officer in Charge of the Pennsylvania State Police |
| 3:2014cv02469 |
| December 29, 2014 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Wayne |
| DB |
| William J. Nealon |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
27
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry), 1.The above captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as untimely under the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(d). 2.The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.3.There is no basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). ORDER TERMINATING CASE.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 11/15/18. (bs)
|
|
Filing
16
MEMO & ORDER: 1. Petitioner is granted twenty (20) days from the date ofthis order to show cause why his petition should not bedismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.2. Respondent is granted fifteen (15) days from the dateof Glushkos response to file a reply. Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 2/7/17. (ep)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
