PRUITT v. LAMAS et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION transferring petition to the Court of Appeals as a successive petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 09/03/2013. (Mitchell, Robert)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK PRUITT, HV-1577
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
2:13-cv-1262
)
MARIROSA LAMAS, et al.,
)
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Mitchell, M.J.:
Frank Pruitt 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
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for consideration as a
successive petition.
Pruitt is presently serving a forty to eighty year sentence imposed following his
conviction, by a jury of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, endangering the welfare of
a child, simple assault, indecent assault and corruption of minors at Nos. 2624-2004, 8223-2007
and 5388-2008 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This sentence
was imposed on November 17, 2008.1
However, this is not Pruitt’s first challenge to this sentence. He previously filed a
challenge in this Court which was docketed at 2:12-cv-1044 where we addressed his challenges
to these same convictions and on November 16, 2012, concluded that the petition was without
merit. On April 3, 2013, the Court of appeals denied a certificate of appealability.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed into law on April 24, 1996,
included several major reforms to the federal habeas corpus laws. As part of this habeas corpus
1
See: Petition at ¶¶ 1-6
reform, Congress amended 28 U.S.C.' 2244 to prohibit district courts from entertaining claims
presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application unless the appropriate federal
court of appeals authorizes such filing. The relevant amended language provides as follows:
(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in
the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for
an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge
panel of the court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive
application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing
that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or
successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.
(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or
successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a
petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.
28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3).
Because the instant petition was improperly filed in this court as opposed to the Court of
Appeals as required by 28 U.S.C§.2244(b)(3)(A), this Court lacks jurisdiction over it without the
authorization of the Court of Appeals, and it will be transferred to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C§.1631 for consideration as a successive
petition.
An appropriate Order shall be entered.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2013, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum, the instant petition is transferred forthwith to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631 for consideration as a successive petition.
s/ Robert C. Mitchell,
United States Magistrate Judge
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?