Walker v. Pierce et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 8/12/14. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DEMERRIS WALI<ER,

Petitioner,
C.A. No. 13-1549-LPS

v.

DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner Demerris Walker's ("Petitioner")

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U .S.c. § 2254 ("Petition"). (D.I. 1) In
2003, Petitioner was convicted of second degree rape, first degree burglary, theft of a senior,
attempted first degree robbery, and second degree conspiracy; these convictions stemmed from
Petitioner's rape of an eighty-four year old woman and the ransacking of her apartment. The
Superior Court for the State of Delaware sentenced Petitioner to eighty-four years of incarceration.

See Waikerv.

PheipJ~

2008 WL 4372728, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 23,2008).

The instant Petition asserts seven grounds for relief: (1) evidence obtained as a result of an
unreasonable knock and announce procedure should have been excluded from trial; (2) trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance by failing to determine if the State's witness statements were
admissible; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; (4) the trial court failed to "disclose or inquire [about]
mental examination of both defendants;" (5) trial court and counsel erred by failing to ask
prospective jurors if they knew any of the witnesses; (6) counsel provided ineffective assistance by
failing to withdraw when a conflict of interest occurred; and (7) the trial court erred and counsel

provided ineffective assistance by failing to request or give an alibi instruction fonowing the State's
closing argument. (D.I. 3)
Petitioner has already requested, and has been denied, habeas relief with respect to the same
2003 convictions and eighty-four year sentence on one prior occasion, when the Honorable Joseph
]. Farnan, Jr. dismissed his flrst petition as time-barred. Jee Walker, 2008 WL 4372728, at *4.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2244(b)(1), if a habeas petitioner erroneously f:tles a second or

successive habeas application "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." Rnbinson v. Johm'on, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). A habeas application is
classifled as second or successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.c. § 2244 if a prior application has
been decided on the merits, the prior and new applications challenge the same conviction, and the
new application asserts a claim that was, or could have been, raised in the prior habeas application.

Jee Bem'hoffv. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812, 817 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Olabode, 325 F.3d 166, 169-73 (3d Cir.
2003).

III.

DISCUSSION
The dismissal of Petitioner's flrst § 2254 petition as time-barred constitutes an adjudication

on the merits. See Jvlttrrqy 1). Greiner, 394 F.3d 78,81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that dismissal of § 2254
application as time barred constitutes adjudication on merits for successive purposes); Altman 1).

Benik, 337 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that "a statute of limitations bar is not a curable
technical or procedural deflciency but rather operates as an irremediable defect barring
consideration of the petitioner's substantive claims"). Petitioner could have asserted the instant
seven claims in rus fIrst petition. Therefore, the Court concludes that the instant Petition constitutes

2

a second or successive habeas application within the meaning of 28 U.S.C § 2244.
Petitioner does not allege, and there is no reason to conclude, that the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals authorized the filing of the pending petition. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the
Petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Court, 28 U.S.C foll. § 2254 (authorizing summary dismissal of § 2254 petitions); 28
U.S.c. § 2244(b)(1).

IV.

MOTIONS
During the pendency of this proceeding, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In

Fonna Pauperis (D.l. 1) and a Motion for an Extension of Time to File an Opening Brief (D.l. 5).
The Court will grant the Motion to Proceed In i-'onna Pallpens for the limited purpose of filing the
instant Petition. However, the Court will deny as moot Petitioner's Motion for an Extension of
Time to ftle an Opening Brief, because the record reveals that Petitioner ftled a Memorandum in
Support of Petition. (D.l. 6)

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reason set forth above, the Court will summarily dismiss the instant Petition for lack

of jurisdiction. The Court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner
has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See 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). A separate
Order will be entered.

f.~ Q~, ~. ; I '".
\. I

Dated: August 12, 2014

UNITED

3

,'"

~TATE~DISndcT f~DGE