Turkos v. Brittain et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/5/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DECEMBER 5, 2017
Joseph Turkos, an inmate presently confined at the State Correctional
Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania (SCI-Frackville) , filed this pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Named as Respondent is SCIFrackville Superintendent Brittain. The required filing fee has been paid.
The Petition challenges the legality of Turkos’ guilty plea to a charge of
corruption of a minor in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania. Service of the petition has not been ordered.
This Court issued an Order on October 30, 2017 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
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; or (2) withdraw his petition
and file one all-inclusive § 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 Turkos 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 November 16, 2017, Turkos 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
U.S.C. § 2254 within the one-year time limit for filing such a petition. He also
acknowledged that the AEDPA statute of limitations might bar the filing of any
such successive petition. See Doc. 5, p. 1.
Miller and Mason sought to prevent pro se litigants from unintentionally defaulting federal
claims through failure to assert them in a single petition.
Based upon an application of the standards announced in Miller and Mason
to Turkos’ 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 Turkos has expressed that he does not wish to proceed with his petition, it
will be dismissed without prejudice.
An appropriate Order follows.2
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
Petitioner is again forewarned that his new petition would have to be submitted within the one
year period of limitation authorized under Title 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?