Murray v. Keen et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 4/1/14. (km)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN CHRISTIAN MURRAY,
WARDEN KEEN, ET AL.,
CIVIL NO. 4:CV-14-256
April 1, 2014
Shawn Christian Murray, an inmate presently confined at the State
Correctional Institution, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, (SCI-Camp Hill), filed this pro
se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Named as Respondents
are Warden Keen, who is employed at Petitioner’s prior place of incarceration,
the Franklin County Prison, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and former
Pennsylvania State Attorney General Linda Kelly.
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to § 2254 with respect
to his conviction for driving under the influence which was rendered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
This Court issued an Order on February 24, 2014 which advised Petitioner,
in accordance with United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999) and
Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), that (1) he could have the petition
ruled on as filed; that is, as a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus and heard
as such, but lose his ability to file a second or successive petition absent
certification by the Court of Appeals; or (2) withdraw his petition and file one allinclusive § 2254 petition within the one-year statutory period prescribed by the
Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).1 See Doc. 4. The Order
additionally warned Murray that if he elected to withdraw his instant petition in
order to file one all-inclusive petition, the AEDPA’s statute of limitations might
bar the filing of any such successive petition.
Accompanying the Order was a Notice of Election form and Petitioner was
directed to notify this Court within forty-five (45) days as to how he wished to
proceed in this matter.
On March 20, 2014, Murray submitted an executed Notice of Election form
wherein he notified this Court that he wished to withdraw his instant petition for
writ of habeas corpus so that he may file one, all-inclusive petition under 28
Miller and Mason sought to prevent pro se litigants from unintentionally
defaulting federal claims through failure to assert them in a single petition.
U.S.C. § 2254 within the one year-year time limit for filing such a petition.2 He
also acknowledged that the AEDPA statute of limitations might bar the filing of
any such successive petition. See Doc. 6.
Based upon an application of the standards announced in Miller and Mason
to Murray’s announced intention that he does not wish to proceed with his present
petition, this Court is precluded from ruling upon his action as filed.
Consequently, since Murray has expressed that he does not wish to proceed with
his petition, it will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order will
BY THE COURT:
S/MATTHEW W. BRANN
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
Petitioner is forewarned that his new petition would have to be submitted
within the one year period of limitation authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
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?