BAILEY v. MOONEY
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 6 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by DEMETRIUS BAILEY transferring petition to the Court of Appeals for consideration as a successive petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/08/2013. (Mitchell, Robert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEMETRIUS BAILEY, CP-7819,
Petitioner,
v.
VINCENT MOONEY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:13-cv-1362
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Mitchell, M.J.:
Demetrius Bailey, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township has
presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 For the reasons set forth below, the petition will
be transferred to the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit for consideration as a
successive petition.
However, this is not Bailey's first challenge to his homicide conviction. As recently as
May 8, 2013 Bailey sought habeas corpus relief in this Court at 2:13-cv-653. The latter petition
was transferred to the Court of Appeals for consideration as a successive petition and on June 25,
2013, the Court of Appeals noted:
Petitioner's application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244 to file a second or successive
28 U.S.C. §2254 petition is denied. First, Petitioner requests relief that is
unavailable under the federal habeas statutes to the extent that he does not
challenge his conviction or sentence. Second, to the extent that Petitioner
challenges his conviction or sentence, he has not shown that he relies on either "a
new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by
the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable," 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(2)(A),
or newly discovered evidence that "could not have been discovered previously
through the exercise of due diligence," and which demonstrates his actual
innocence by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2)(B).
1
On October 7, 2013, Bailey filed "Objections" to our characterization of his petition as one filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2254 and instead contends that he has submitted a "Motion to Vacate" pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1).
However, it is apparent from the "Motion to Vacate" that he is seeking to challenge the coroner's inquest which
ultimately led to his conviction and incarceration. Clearly, this petition is not properly considered under Rule
60(b)(1) and the matter can only be construed as a petition submitted pursuant to §2254. We also noted in several of
the petitioner's past filings in this Court he alleged jurisdiction in terms of Rule 60(b) petitions, and they were
dismissed as such.
1
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
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.
2
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of October, 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
3
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?