SALLAM v. GILMORE et al, No. 2:2018cv00448 - Document 36 (E.D. Pa. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION IS GRANTED AND PETITIONER'S TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL FROM THE COURT'S ORDER ENTERED ON 3/23/20 (DOC. NO. 30 ) IS REOPENED FOR A PERIOD OF 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. PETITIONER'S RULE 60(B) MOTION TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INTEGRITY OF HABEAS PROCEEDINGS (DOC. NO. 33 ) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/30/21. 4/30/21 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE; E-MAILED.(amas, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SALLAM v. GILMORE et al Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHAMSIDDIN SALLAM, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION v. ROBERT GILMORE, et al., Respondents. NO. 18-448 ORDER AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2021, upon consideration of Petitioner Shamsiddin Sallam’s September 18, 2020 letter (ECF No. 31), which the Court construes as a Motion to Reopen Time to Appeal, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED; and 2. Petitioner’s time to file an appeal from the Court’s Order entered on March 23, 2020 (ECF No. 30) is reopened for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Rule 60(b) Motion to Correct Defect in Integrity of Habeas Proceedings” (ECF No. 33) is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/Wendy Beetlestone, J. _______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
