Warren v. Sauers et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM re Petr's MOTION for Relief from Judgment 59 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/12/17. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHONARI WARREN,
Petitioner,
v.
DEBRA SAUERS, et al.,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:12-cv-1819

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
The background of this memorandum is as follows: On September 11,
2012, Petitioner Shonari Warren filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc.
1.) The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who filed a report and
recommendation. (Doc. 36.) A supplemental report was filed on February 24,
2015. (Doc. 46.) The court adopted the report and recommendation that same day.
(Doc. 47.) On March 30, 2015, Warren filed a notice of appeal, and on April 8,
2015, he filed a motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 56.) In a memorandum and order dated April 8, 2015, the
motion was denied. On January 5, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit declined to grant Warren a certificate of appealability.
Now before the court is a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (Doc. 59.) This document raises issues
previously raised or that could have been raised, i.e., (1) federal review under the

AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), constituted a defect in the habeas process; (2) the
magistrate judge’s review was defective; (3) the district judge failed a de novo
review; (4) the district court erred in ruling that Warren’s “claim 2” was
procedurally defaulted; and (5) the court’s Strickland analysis was in error.
The motion amounts to a second or successive § 2254 petition. In
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a Rule
60(b) motion in a habeas case should be treated as a second or successive § 2254
petition if it advances a claim for habeas relief.
A second or successive petition must seek authorization from the Court
of Appeals before this court can entertain such a petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3).
This has not been done by Warren.
The motion will be denied.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: April 12, 2017

2