Opinion
1:19-cv-204
05-03-2021
MICHAEL A. BAILEY, Petitioner v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI HOUTZDALE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENSYLVANIA, Respondents
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [ECF No. 3]
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 3, be denied and that no certificate of appealability issue.
II. Report
A. Background
Before the Court is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Michael A. Bailey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 3. At the time of the filing, Bailey was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania.
Bailey has since been transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Albion.
A review of the record and the criminal docket sheet for Bailey's underlying convictions in Commonwealth v. Bailey, No. CP-25-CR-0003243-2016 (Erie Cnty. Com. Pl.), discloses the following relevant facts.
The criminal docket is available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-25-CR-0003243-2016&dnh=MRHxfLQ31wdc5samYJFlBg%3D%3D (last visited April 14, 2021).
Bailey was convicted by a jury of burglary, criminal trespass, and theft by unlawful taking. Bailey proceeded pro se at trial, with standby counsel. On March 9, 2018, the court sentenced Bailey to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 to 22 years.
Bailey subsequently filed a pro se direct appeal from his judgment of sentence. On September 12, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, finding that his appellate brief was “rife with rambling discourse and nonsensical invectives, and his arguments - to the extent [the Court could] discern them - are devoid of any coherence from which to conduct meaningful review.” Commonwealth v. Bailey, 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3381, at *2 (Pa. Super. 2018) (unpublished memorandum). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Bailey's petition for allowance of appeal on April 10, 2019. Bailey did not file a petition pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq.
The instant petition was filed on July 16, 2019. ECF No. 3. The District Attorney of Erie County filed a response thereto on August 28, 2020. ECF No. 40. The petition is now ripe for review.
B. Analysis
In the instant petition, Bailey sets forth four grounds for relief. Ground One concerns the constitutionality of the affidavit of probable cause. ECF No. 3 at 5. It is entitled:
U.S. & PA Constitution 4th Amendment, PA Declaration of Rights, Art.1, 8 -Probable Cause Standard, Illegal Search & Seizure, Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine, Fruit of an Illegal Arrest, Identification of Suspects, Probable Cause of Arrest, “Four Corners Rule”, Particularity Requirement,Id. Ground Two, entitled “Violation of the 5th Const. Amendment, Due Process & Brady Violation, ” concerns the admission of impermissible hearsay and the Commonwealth's failure to provide discovery to Bailey. Id. at 7. In Ground Three, entitled “6th Amendment Violations / Batson & Rose Challenge/s, ” Bailey asserts that “[t]he pub. def. did not challenge th[e] []perjury taking place at the pre-lim hearing and did not move for an immediate dismissal - after- eye witnesses testified to scientifically impossible description[.] Id. at 8. In this Ground, Bailey also mentions violations of his speedy trial right and the Confrontation Clause. Id. In Ground Four, entitled “Violation of the 8th and 14th Const. Amend. Cruel & Unusual Punishment/ Equal Protection Violation, ” Bailey sets forth facts concerning the cancellation of two trial dates and an allegedly fabricated warrant issued following the second cancellation. Id. at 10.
Bailey asserts that he raised all of these claims on direct appeal. Even assuming arguendo that he did attempt to do so, the Pennsylvania Superior Court did not address these claims on their merits due to Bailey's failure to file a coherent appellate brief. These claims are thus procedurally defaulted.
The doctrine of procedural default bars federal habeas review of a claim the petitioner failed to raise the claim in compliance with a state's procedural rules where, for that reason, the state court declined to address the federal claim on the merits. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000).
When a claim is procedurally defaulted, however, a petitioner can overcome the default if he demonstrates “cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). “‘[C]ause' under the cause and prejudice test must be something external to the petitioner, something that cannot fairly be attributed to him[.]” Id. at 753 (emphasis in original). Bailey's failure to comply with the appellate court's briefing requirements is attributable solely to him.
Bailey's claims are procedurally defaulted, and he is thus barred from federal habeas relief thereupon. Accordingly, this petition should be denied.
C. Certificate of Appealability
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition. It provides that “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from … the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). It also provides that “[a] certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Applying that standard here, jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether Bailey's claims should be dismissed because they are procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, no certificate of appealability should issue.
III. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).