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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?