DICKERSON v. KAUFFMAN

Civil Action No. 15-6064.

ISSAC DICKERSON, Petitioner, v. KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus: (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ISSAC DICKERSON, Petitioner, Pro Se.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, Respondent, represented by HEATHER F. GALLAGHER , LEHIGH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY'S OFFICE.


ORDER

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 17th day of April 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and all related filings, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, to which no objections have been filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED1;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without an evidentiary hearing;

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability2; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

It is so ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. As set forth in the thorough Report and Recommendation, although Petitioner's claims are not procedurally defaulted, they are without merit. Petitioner failed to establish that he suffered prejudice from counsel's failure to request certain jury instructions in light of the jury charge as a whole and the substantial evidence of guilt; the claim of ineffective PCRA counsel is not cognizable; appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue of trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness on direct appeal; and Petitioner failed to raise a prima facie claim that his venire panel did not reflect a fair cross section of the community.
2. 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).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases