FOR THE EASTERN DISTR ICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL BURTON : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. : NO. 05-4872
:
GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT :
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF :
PHILADELPHIA, THE ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF :
PENNSYLVANIA :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of October 2024, upon considering petitioner’s motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) & 60(b)(6) (DI 23),
respondents’ opposition (DI 32), petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (DI 30),
petitioner’s motion for discovery (DI 31), petitioner’s motion to stay (DI 33), and for reasons in
the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment (DI 23) is DENIED and
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to his right to file with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit an application to file a second or successive habeas
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (DI 30) is DENIED as moot.
3. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (DI 31) is DENIED as moot.
4. Petitioner’s motion to stay (DI 33) is DENIED as moot.
5. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
6. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.