MCNATT v. LOBAUGH, et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting 29 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's 29 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED and this case be re-opened. It is further ordered that this matter be referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter for a Report and Recommendation addressing whether the doctrines of exhaustion and/or procedural default apply to Petitioner's claims and, in the case of the latter, whether dismissing those claims as procedurally defaulted would amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 05/17/07. (jdg)

Download PDF
MCNATT v. LOBAUGH, et al Doc. 33 Case 1:05-cv-00124-SJM-SPB Document 33 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EDWARD JOSEPH MCNATT, Petitioner, v. JUDGE OLIVER LOBAUGH, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 05-124 Erie MEMORANDUM ORDER This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on April 20, 2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 25], filed on January 29, 2007, recommended that Respondents' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies [Doc. No. 20] be granted. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner and on Respondents. Petitioner filed Objections on February 9, 2007 [Doc. No. 26]. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition be dismissed because he had failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Petitioner, at the time that he filed this action, had a PCRA petition pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court which included claims also presented in the instant habeas petition. In his Objections, Petitioner informed the Court that he had voluntarily dismissed his PCRA petition and asserted that, consequently, he had exhausted his state remedies. We nonetheless adopted the Report and Recommendation, expressing doubt as to whether a Petitioner may properly exhaust his own claims by filing a voluntary dismissal in state court. On March 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 29], asserting that, although our Order cited the exhaustion doctrine as the basis for dismissal, a procedural default analysis would be more appropriate. Petitioner requests that this matter Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-00124-SJM-SPB Document 33 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 2 be referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter so that he may be given an opportunity to argue that procedural default must be excused to avoid a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495 (1986). After reviewing the motion, we agree that Petitioner did not receive an opportunity to raise and argue that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if the procedural default doctrine is utilized to bar his claims. AND NOW, this 17th day of May, 2007; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 29] is GRANTED and this case be re-opened. It is further ordered that this matter be referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter for a Report and Recommendation addressing whether the doctrines of exhaustion and/or procedural default apply to Petitioner's claims and, in the case of the latter, whether dismissing those claims as procedurally defaulted would amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. s/ Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge cm: All parties of record Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge 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?