HOLDEN v. WETZEL et al

Filing 20

ORDER THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT MR. HOLDEN CLAIMS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, HIS OBJECTIONS (DOCKET NO. 18) ARE GRANTED. MR. HOLDEN'S REMAINING OBJECTIONS ARE DENIED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCKET NO. 13) ARE APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL DEFAULT ONLY. THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 9/16/16. 9/20/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOMAR HOLDEN,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN WETZEL,
et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 15-5421

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2016, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge
Carol Sandra Moore Wells’s Report and Recommendations (Docket No. 13) and Petitioner’s
Objections to the Report and Recommendations (Docket No. 18), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. To the extent that Mr. Holden claims that he did not have the opportunity to address
the affirmative defense of procedural default, his Objections (Docket No. 18) are
GRANTED. 1 Mr. Holden’s remaining objections are DENIED. 2

1

The Report and Recommendations in this matter reject two of Mr. Holden’s claims as procedurally
defaulted. Procedural default is an affirmative defense that was raised by the Respondents in their
opposition to Mr. Holden’s petition. The Report and Recommendation issued in this matter was filed
only 8 days after the Respondents’ opposition was filed, however, which gave Mr. Holden little
opportunity to respond to this defense, especially considering the vagaries of prison mail. Thus, the Court
will give Mr. Holden an opportunity to substantively address the procedural default issue and will ask
Magistrate Judge Wells to incorporate his arguments into her consideration of the issue. Nothing in this
Order should be read as taking any position on the merits of Mr. Holden’s potential cause and prejudice
arguments.

2

One of Mr. Holden’s claims was considered on the merits – Mr. Holden’s sufficiency of the evidence
claim. Mr. Holden objects to Magistrate Judge Wells’s Report and Recommendations, arguing that the
state court considered the wrong standard in deciding his claim, contending that they looked at the
evidence from the position of the trial court judge, rather than from the position of “any rational trier of
fact.” As Magistrate Judge Wells clearly explains, however, the state court did not apply the incorrect
standard, and a careful consideration of the evidence reveals that there was more than sufficient evidence
to support the verdict.
1

2. The Report and Recommendations (Docket No. 13) are APPROVED and
ADOPTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part, to the extent that they
discuss the issue of procedural default only.
3. This case is referred to the Honorable Carole Sandra Moore Wells, with instructions
to give Mr. Holden an opportunity to respond to the Respondents’ procedural default
arguments only and to file a Report and Recommendations that considers those
arguments.

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2