GALOVICH v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction, denying a certificate of appealability, and adopting the 3 Report and Recommendation of Judge Lenihan as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 5/19/14. (njt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE GALOVICH,

)
)

Petitioner,

)
)

V.

)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF BUTLER
COUNTY,

2:13cv1683
Electronic Filing
Judge David Stewart Cercone
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

)
)

)

)

Respondent.

)

1,., MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this__!_:!._ day of May, 2014, the Petitioner, George Galovich, having filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the above-captioned case (ECF No. 1), and after a Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge giving the
parties until May 5, 2014, to file written objections thereto, and Petitioner having filed
Objections (ECF No.4) on April 30, 2014, and upon independent review ofthe record,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in that Report and

Recommendation, which is adopted as the Opinion of this Court, the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is denied. Petitioner's

reasons for why the Court should grant a Certificate of Appealability do not undermine the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation that one should not be granted. The case which Petitioner
cites in support of his argument, Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968), does not stand for the
proposition for which it is cited in Petitioner's Objections. The petitioner in Carafas filed his
federal habeas petition while he was still in custody but it was denied by the district court and
denial was affirmed on appeal because the petitioner was released from custody and his sentence

had expired before his petition was adjudicated. The United States Supreme Court vacated and
remanded on the basis that the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his application for relief
on its merits, even though he was no longer in custody, because of the "collateral consequences"
he suffered as a result of his conviction. The Court did not, however, overrule the requirement
that applicants be "in custody" when the application for federal habeas corpus is filed. Indeed, it
specifically referenced the mandatory nature of this requirement and the fact that the petitioner
was in custody when his application was filed.
Although this Court is sympathetic to Petitioner's procedural predicament, one that he
has so emotionally detailed in his Objections, and the "collateral consequences" he must face as
a result of his conviction, he has no avenue for relief in federal court by way of a petition for writ
of habeas corpus. All further Objections not specifically referenced herein are deemed without
merit and do not require discussion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is to mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l) of the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure, if any party wishes to appeal from this Order then a notice of appeal, as
provided in Fed. R. App. P. 3, must be filed with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court,
at 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, within thirty (30) days.

David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
cc:

Honorable Lisa Pupo Lenihan
David B. Chontos, Esquire
(Via ECF Electronic Mail)
2