From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Patrick

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 30, 2007
CIVIL ACTION No. 05-6643 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2007)

Summary

holding that failure to comply with Rule 2119 constituted adequate and independent state ground for dismissal of habeas claim

Summary of this case from Kirnon v. Klopotoski

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 05-6643.

October 30, 2007


MEMORANDUM/ORDER


On December 15, 2005, petitioner, Jasper Washington, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. As detailed in the Report and Recommendation entered on July 5, 2007 (Docket # 19), the claims underlying the instant petition were alleged in a petition for relief under the State of Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), filed in state court on January 6, 2006. Washington had filed a prior PCRA petition that was pending when the January 6 petition was filed. The prior petition was summarily dismissed by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on January 26, 2006 pursuant to Rule 907 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. On September 13, 2006, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the prior PCRA petition, and, in the course of its opinion, ruled that Washington's second PCRA petition was impermissible under Commonwealth v. Lark, 560 Pa. 487 (2000), and that the arguments underlying the second PCRA petition were waived under Rule 2119 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Thus, as explained in the Report and Recommendation, petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted based on adequate and independent state grounds.

ACCORDINGLY, upon review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. Jasper Washington's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
3. A Certificate of Appealability is NOT GRANTED.


Summaries of

Washington v. Patrick

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 30, 2007
CIVIL ACTION No. 05-6643 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2007)

holding that failure to comply with Rule 2119 constituted adequate and independent state ground for dismissal of habeas claim

Summary of this case from Kirnon v. Klopotoski

finding that failure to comply with Rule 2119 constituted adequate and independent state ground for dismissal of habeas claim

Summary of this case from Branch v. Tennis
Case details for

Washington v. Patrick

Case Details

Full title:JASPER WASHINGTON PLAINTIFF, v. GEORGE PATRICK, et al., DEFENDANTS

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 30, 2007

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 05-6643 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2007)

Citing Cases

Wolfe v. Diguglielmo

See Bleacher v. Rivers, 2007 WL 515529, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2007). Subsequently, on May 10, 2000,…

Kirnon v. Klopotoski

When combined with Kirnon's failure to exhaust claim V, Kirnon has procedurally defaulted claims I-VII. See,…