Nieves v. State Of Delaware et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/13/13. (mdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF DELAWARE,
Civil Action No. 13-1273-GMS
In March 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted Nieves of twenty counts of first degree
rape, ten counts of second degree unlawful sexual contact, one count of second degree rape, and
one count of continuing sexual abuse of a child. See Nieves v. State, 2005 WL 1200861, at *1
(Del. May 18, 2005). The Superior Court sentenced Nieves to 322 years of imprisonment on
May 24, 2002. Nieves appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and
sentence. Nieves v. State, 817 A.2d 804 (Table), 2003 WL 329589 (Del. Feb. 11, 2003).
In 2008, this court denied as time-barred Nieves' first petition for a writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Nieves v. Phelps, 2008 WL 1743435 (D. Del. Apr. 16,
2008). Recently, Nieves filed a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 ("petition"), asserting two grounds for relief: ( 1) his constitutional rights were violated
because a videotaped testimonial statement was submitted to the jury in violation of 11 Del.
Code Ann. § 3507; and (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. (D.I. 1)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 2244(b )(1 ), if a habeas petitioner erroneously files a second or
successive habeas petition " in a district court without the permission of a court of appeals, the
district court' s only option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1631." Robinson v. Johnson , 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). Notably, a
habeas petition is not considered second or successive simply because it follows a prior petition.
See Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 944 (2007). Rather, a habeas petition is classified as
second or successive within the meaning of 28 U .S.C. § 2244 if a prior petition has been decided
on the merits, the prior and new petitions challenge the same conviction, and the new petition
asserts a claim that was, or could have been, raised in a prior habeas petition. See Bene hoff v.
Colleran , 404 F.3d 812,817 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Olabode, 325 F.3d 166, 169-73 (3d Cir. 2003).
The instant petition is Nieves ' second request for habeas relief with respect to his 2002
convictions and sentences. Nieves ' first federal habeas petition was denied as time-barred, which
constitutes an adjudication on the merits. See Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78 , 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
In addition, Nieves already presented the two claims asserted in the instant petition during his
first habeas proceeding in this court. For these reasons, the court concludes that the instant
petition constitutes a second or successive habeas petition within the meaning of§ 2244.
The record reveals that Nieves did not obtain permission from the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals before filing his pending habeas request. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the instant
unauthorized second or successive petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1);
Robinson v. Johnson , 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002)(holding that when a second or successive
habeas petition is erroneously filed "in a district court without the permission of the court of
appeals, the district court's only option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of
appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.").
The court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Nieves has failed
to make a "substantial showing ofthe denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S .C. § 2253(c)(2);
3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997).
For the aforementioned reasons, the court will deny Nieves" § 2254 petition for lack of
jurisdiction because it constitutes an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2244. A separate order will be entered.
~/) 1 WI)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?