Layton v. Phelps et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/14/2013. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SAMUEL L. LAYTON,
Petitioner,
v.

C.A. No. 13-378-RGA

PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Samuel L. Layton's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") asserts various constitutional errors associated with his
2003 convictions for first degree rape, second degree rape, and continuous sexual
abuse of a child. (D. I. 1) Layton was already denied habeas relief for these same
convictions on one prior occasion, when the Honorable J. Curtis Joyner dismissed his
first petition as time-barred. See Layton v. Phelps, Civ. Act. No. 10-737-JCJ (Del. Apr.
18,2011).
The instant Petition is a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244, because the denial of Layton's first petition as time-barred constitutes an
adjudication on the merits for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and the instant
Petition asserts claims that could have been asserted in Layton's first petition. See

Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 80 (3d Cir. 2005); Benchoff v. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812,
817-18 (3d Cir. 2005). Layton has not obtained authorization from the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals to file this successive habeas request and, to the extent his assertion

of "newly discovered evidence" is an attempt to avoid the second/successive bar, that is
an issue for the Court of Appeals to decide, not this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2244(b)(2)(B) & (3).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Rule
4, 28 U.S.C. foil.§ 2254; Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). A
separate Order will be entered.

2