SWITZER v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
| KERRY LEE SWITZER, JR. |
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MARK BISHOP, WARDEN VENANGO COUNTY PRISON and DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR VENANGO COUNTY |
| 1:2021cv00343 |
| December 13, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Richard A Lanzillo |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Return of Service Returned Executed DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR VENANGO COUNTY served on 1/28/2022, answer due 2/18/2022; WARDEN VENANGO COUNTY PRISON served on 2/1/2022, answer due 2/22/2022. (jv) |
Filing 6
ORDER DIRECTING that the United States Marshal shall make service of this order, together with a copy of the petition, upon the respondents by certified mail, costs to be advanced by the United States. Within 21 days of service of this order, respondent and the District Attorney shall respond to the allegations of the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The District Attorney shall furnish this court with the state court records. The parties are allowed 14 days from this date to appeal this order to a District Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72(C)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 1/13/2022. (dm)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER denying #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner has no constitutional right to counsel in this habeas proceeding, Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987), and, because this is a non-capital case, he has no statutory right to counsel either. Whether to appoint counsel in this action lies within the discretion of the Court (unless appointment is "necessary for effective discovery," in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the rules governing habeas cases in the United States District Courts, or the Court determines that "an evidentiary hearing is warranted," in accordance with Rule 8(c) of those rules). There is no reason for the Court to exercise its discretion to appoint the petitioner counsel at this time and, therefore, his motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. In the event the Court subsequently determines that this case is one in which it should exercise its discretion and appoint the petitioner counsel, or is one in which it must appoint counsel, the Court will do so in accordance with its Criminal Justice Act Plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 1/12/22. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jdg)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER denying as moot #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has already paid the filing fee for this action. See ECF No. 1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 1/12/22. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jdg)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number 14668005062 filed by KERRY LEE SWITZER, JR. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-1, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C-1, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit X, #7 Receipt, #8 Envelope) (pak) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by KERRY LEE SWITZER, JR. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (pak) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by KERRY LEE SWITZER, JR. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (pak) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Western 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.
