ABDULLAH v. WARDEN SCI DALLAS et al

Filing 38

ORDER THAT THE PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT A HEARING; FURTHER ORDERED THAT NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2253 BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF A DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR ON 5/13/15. 5/14/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLAINTIFF AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NAREE ABDULLAH
v.
WARDEN SCI DALLAS, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 06-3885

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of May, 2015, having considered the pro se petition for a
second writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Naree Abdullah, I
make the following findings and reach the following conclusions:
1.

Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated in the Mahanoy State
Correctional Institution in Frackville, Pennsylvania. He is currently serving
a life sentence for second degree murder.

2.

On August 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a counseled petition with this court
seeking habeas corpus relief. I denied that petition on February 9, 2010.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
decision on August 14, 2012. The United States Supreme Court denied
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 13, 2013.

3.

Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition on April 3, 2015, alleging, inter
alia, actual innocence. the discovery of new evidence and violations of
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

4.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)
provides that before a second or successive habeas petition is filed in the
district court, the prisoner must first move in the appropriate circuit court
for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C.
2244(b)(3)(A); see also In re Minarik, 166 F.3d 591, 609 (3d Cir. 1999).

5.

Petitioner has not received authorization from the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals to file a successive habeas petition related to the instant

conviction. As a result, Petitioner’s habeas petition must be dismissed.1
Based upon the foregoing, I HEREBY ORDER that the petition is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT A HEARING.
I FURTHER ORDER that no certificate of appealability will be issued pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a
denial of a constitutional right.
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to mark this case closed.

/s/ J. William Ditter, Jr.
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR., J.

1

Petitioner asserts that he has a pending appeal in the Pennsylvania courts and that
on September 4, 2014, he filed a motion in the Third Circuit seeking permission to file a
second or successive habeas petition. The Pennsylvania docket shows that Petitioner
filed a pro se petition under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.
Con. Stat. § 9541, et seq., on December 23, 2013, and that no further activity has occurred
on his PCRA petition. The docket for the Third Circuit does not indicate that Petitioner
has filed a motion to file a second or successive habeas petition.