Maimoni v. Medeiros

Filing 10

Judge Richard G. Stearns: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ENTERED. copy to Thomas Maimoni on 2/6/15.(Flaherty, Elaine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. 15-10035-RGS
THOMAS J. MAIMONI
v.
SEAN MEDEIROS, SUPERINTENDENT
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - NORFOLK
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEARNS, D.J.

February 6, 2015

On January 7, 2015, Thomas J. Maimoni filed a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus and supporting memorandum in
challenging his 1993 conviction in Essex Superior Court for second-degree
murder. The petition asserts one ground for relief -- that “The Official
Version of the Crime [with the prosecutors] Manufacturing a motive, [and
relying on] bogus witness statements.” Pet. ¶ 12. Maimoni complains that
the prosecutors were involved with “[t]he intentional and willful
manufacturing of a motive [and for more than twenty years have] sought to
obstruct any and ALL contrary evidence.” Pet’r’s Mem. at 10.
Maimoni’s petition currently is before the court for preliminary
review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United
States District Courts (§ 2254 Rules). Pursuant to § 2254, Rule 4, a judge is
1

required to promptly examine any petition for habeas relief, and if “it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition.” Id. In undertaking this examination, the court decides
whether the petition contains relief that is plausible on its face and
cognizable in a federal habeas action. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849,
856 (1994), citing § 2254 Rule 4 (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss
summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its
face.”). In considering the petition, the court gives deference to Maimoni’s
pro se status. “As a general rule, . . . we hold pro se pleadings to less
demanding standards than those drafted by lawyers and endeavor, within
reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims due to technical
defects.” Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner previously sought habeas relief concerning his conviction.
See Maimoni v. Commonwealth, C.A. No. 97-10997-GAO (D. Mass)
(Section 2254 petition summarily dismissed as unexhausted); Maimoni v.
Wall, C.A. No. 13-11298-DJC (D. Mass) (Section 2254 petition dismissed as
untimely). By Electronic Order dated December 16, 2013, Judge Casper
found, among other things, that because the Massachusetts Supreme
2

Judicial Court denied Maimoni’s request for further appellate review, his
petition seeking collateral review of his murder conviction was untimely.
Commonwealth v. Maimoni, 424 Mass. at 1102 (1996), citing 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A)-(B). Notwithstanding, Maimoni asks this court to “suspend
any Time constraints on [his] application and rule on the merits.” Pet. ¶ 18.
However, before “a second or successive application [under § 2254] is filed
in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Where a litigant bringing a

successive § 2254 petition has not complied with the requirements of §
2244(b)(3)(A), the district court is without jurisdiction to entertain the
merits of the petition. See Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66, 72-73 (1st Cir.
2003).
Here, Maimoni’s petition is subject to the requirements of 2244(b)
based upon the dismissal of his 2013 petition as time barred. See Cook v.
Ryan, C.A. No. 12-11840-RWZ (D. Mass.) (dismissing, sua sponte, § 2254
petition and agreeing with majority of courts concluding that a dismissal of
a petition as time barred in an adjudication on the merits for successive
purposes). While Maimoni contends that the government misinterpreted
the timeline of his 2013 petition, nonetheless, his earlier petition was
3

dismissed it as time-barred. See Pet.¶ 14; Maimoni v. Wall, C.A. No. 1311298-DJC (D. Mass.) (finding the petition untimely whether challenging
the denial of parole or seeking to vacate the murder conviction).

As

Maimoni’s habeas petition is a second or successive § 2254 petition, and he
has failed to obtain permission from the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit to file, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (3)(A); Gautier v. Wall, 620 F.3d 58, 61 (1st Cir. 2010).
ORDER
For the reasons stated, the petition is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(1), as an unauthorized second or successive Section 2254 habeas
petition.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Richard G. Stearns_____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4