Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied and dismissed Steve Wooden’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court also denied a certificate of appealability to the extent the motion could be construed as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Petitioner was entitled to relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
- Whether, if the motion were construed as a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Petitioner was entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b) was denied and dismissed.
- A certificate of appealability was denied because Petitioner had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists would not find the court's assessment debatable or wrong.
Key quotations
“Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), ECF No. 23, is DENIED and DISMISSED.” (p. 1)
Factual background
The supplied text contains no substantive facts about the underlying criminal conviction or habeas proceedings. It establishes only that Steve Wooden sought relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) in this federal habeas matter.
Procedural history
The supplied order addresses Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), ECF No. 23. The court denied and dismissed the motion for the reasons stated in an opinion issued the same day. The order further stated that, if construed as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, a certificate of appealability was denied.