WILLIAMS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SECRETARY, JOHN E. WETZEL et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 9 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by ANTHONY WILLIAMS dismissing petition and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 04/12/2012. (Mitchell, Robert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY WILLIAMS, JS-6649,
Petitioner,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
) 2:12-cv-106
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Mitchell, M.J.:
Anthony Williams an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mercer has presented
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he has been granted leave to prosecute in forma
pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed and because reasonable
jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be
denied.
While difficult to determine it would appear that commencing on April 28, 2009 and
continuing on a number of occasions after that date, petitioner was convicted of several crimes in
the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. On several occasions he was
released on parole only to violate his parole and be reincarcerated. It is not his convictions which
he seeks to challenge here but rather the manner in which the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections has calculated his sentence which according to the petitioner results in an improper
future release date.
We note the record of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at 3257 EDA 20111 which
reflects that Williams filed an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. On February 23,
2012, the Superior Court remanded the matter to the court of common pleas for the latter court to
provide the petitioner with certain materials necessary to prosecute his appeal. In addition, on
February 24, 2012, the Superior Court entered an order directing petitioner to show cause why
1
The Superior Court Docket sheet is available at http://ujsportal.pacourts.us.
1
his appeal should not be dismissed as time barred. On March 15, 2012, the Superior Court
acknowledged received of William’s response and referred the matter to a merits panel.
Additionally, on December 16, 2011 petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the
Commonwealth Court and on February 8, 2012 the latter court transferred the matter to the
Superior Court for consideration.2
It is provided in 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) that:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears
that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,
or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the
existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights
of the prisoner.
This statute represents a codification of the well-established concept which requires that
before a federal court will review any allegations raised by a state prisoner, those allegations
must first be presented to that state's highest court for consideration. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475 (1973); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973);
Doctor v. Walters, 96 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 1996).
It is only when a petitioner has demonstrated that the available corrective process would
be ineffective or futile that the exhaustion requirement will not be imposed. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
supra.; Walker v. Vaughn, 53 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 1995).
If it appears that there are available state court remedies, the court must determine
whether a procedural default has occurred. If a procedural default has occurred, the court must
determine whether cause or prejudice exists for the default, or whether a fundamental
miscarriage of justice would result from a failure to consider the claims. Carter v. Vaughn, 62
F.3d 591 (3d Cir. 1995).
No matter how one construes this matter it is readily apparent that Williams has not
exhausted the available state court remedies nor is he being barred from doing so. For this reason
2
The Commonwealth Docket Sheet is likewise available at http://ujsportal.pacourts.us.
2
his petition here is premature, and it will be dismissed. Additionally, because reasonable jurists
could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
3
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of April 2012, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum, the petition of Anthony Williams for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED and
because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
s/ Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?