Bible v. State of Delaware

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM -. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/17/15. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

DONALD BIBLE,
Petitioner,
v.

STA TE OF DELA WARE,
Respondents.

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)

)

C.A. No. 15-285-GMS

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
In October 2006, petitioner Donald Bible pled guilty to first degree rape, third degree rape

(as a lesser included offense of first degree rape), and continuous sexual abuse of a child. See
Bible v. State, 105 A.3d 988 (Table), 2014 WL 7010822, at *1 (Del.), rearg't denied, (Del. Dec.

16,2014). These convictions stemmed from Bible's sexual abuse ofthe twin granddaughters of
his friend and roommate. Id. The Delaware Superior Court sentenced him to thirty-six years of
incarceration at Level V. Id. Bible did not appeal his convictions or sentence.
On May 19,2008, Bible filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion"). On October 8, 2009, the Delaware
Superior Court denied the Rule 61 motion as time-barred and, alternatively, as meritless. The
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on July 7,2010. See Bible v. Stale, 998 A.2d
850 (Table), 2010 WL 2680542, at *2 (Del. July 7,2010).
Bible filed a federal habeas petition challenging his 2006 convictions, which the court
denied as time-barred on June 3, 2014. See Bible v. Morgan, 2014 WL 2536285 (D. Del. June 3,

2014). Bible filed a notice of appeal with respect to that decision on December 29,2014. See
Bible v. Morgan, Civil Action No. 11-499-GMS, at D.L 50. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
sent a letter to Bible stating that it may lack appellate jurisdiction over the appeal because the
notice of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See Bible v. State, Case No. 15-1021, Letter (3d Cir. Jan. 6, 2015). Bible's appeal
from the court's denial of his habeas petition is still pending before the Third Circuit.
In March, 2015, Bible filed in this court a document titled "motion of request for a writ of
mandamus" (hereinafter referred to as "petition for writ of mandamus"). (D.L 3)

II.

DISCUSSION
Under the All Writs Act, a federal court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus only

"in aid" of its jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). As such, a federal court may issue a writ of
mandamus only if there is an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See United States
v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892,894 (3d Cir. 1981) ("Before entertaining" a petition for a writ of
mandamus, the court "must identifY a jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ might assist.").
Federal courts have jurisdiction "in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of
the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff.'" 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Here, Bible does not allege any action or omission by a federal officer, employee, or
agency that this court might have mandamus jurisdiction to address in the first instance. Rather,
he is seeking:

'To be eligible for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a petitioner must satisfY
three conditions: (1) he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires;" (2) he
demonstrates that "his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable;" and (3) the
issuing court is satisfied that "the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." Hollingsworth v.
Perry, 558 U.S. 183,190 (2010).
2

(1) Federal discretionary review of Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 recognized
in the State of Delaware as cognizable, criminal law, effective June 14,2014, specifically,
Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rules 61 (d)(2), 61(i)(2), and 61(i)(5) to determine if
the changes, alterations and/or additions to these new rules are in violation of the federal
standard; and
(2) A federal Order, or other legal mandate and/or directive by the Federal District Court
of Delaware, that compels the Delaware Supreme Court to remove the procedural bar of
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2), in line with Rule 61 (i)(2), and Rule 61 (i)(5),and move
to review de novo Bible's opening brief. To at the least compel the Delaware Supreme
Court to provide for adjudication of Bible's Motion to Show Good Cause for the
Procedural Default, Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
(3) A federal Order, or other legal mandate and/or directive by the Federal District Court
of Delaware, to the State of Delaware, to change, and/or alter, and/or repeal the newly
recognized rule of criminal procedure, Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (d)(2).

(D.I.3 at 4)
To the extent Bible asks the court to direct Delaware officials to repeal and/or revise
Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, the court does not have jurisdiction to grant Bible's
request. See In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (the District Court "had no
jurisdiction" to "issue a writ of mandamus compelling action by a state official.") As recently
explained by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "[s]tate courts are not 'lower courts'
from this Court's perspective, and principles of comity and federalism ensure that a federal court
ordinarily may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction
entrusted to it." In re Whiteford, 2013 WL 979413, at *1 (3d Cir. Mar. 14,2013) (internal
citations omitted).
To the extent Bible is once again challenging his 2006 convictions and the Delaware
State Courts' denial of his Rule 61 motion, the relief he seeks can only be obtained through the
writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). In tum, because the

3

instant filing is Bible's second request for habeas relief, with his first habeas petition having been
dismissed as time-barred, the court concludes that the instant document constitutes a second or
successive habeas application for the purposes of28 U.S.C. § 2244. Therefore, the court may
only consider the habeas application if Bible obtained prior filing authorization from the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

In this case, Bible does not allege, and there is nothing in the record to indicate, that he
obtained such authorization from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Hence, to the extent the
instant document constitutes a second or successive habeas application, the court will dismiss it
for lack ofjurisdiction. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Court, 28 U.S.c. foIl. § 2254 (authorizing summary dismissal of § 2254
applications); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002) (if
a habeas petitioner erroneously files 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."). The court will also
decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Bible has failed to make a "substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see United States v.
Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011).
Thus, whether the instant petition for writ of mandamus constitutes a true mandamus
request, or a second/successive application for habeas relief, the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider it.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the court concludes that it must dismiss the instant

petition for writ of mandamus for lack ofjurisdiction. A separate order will be entered.

Dated: July

J7

,2015

5