Opinion
1:16-cv-223
08-10-2021
DARREN D. BEASON, Petitioner v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al, Respondents
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner Darren D. Beason's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily denied because the petition is second or successive and Beason did not receive an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit authorizing this Court to consider it, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). It is further recommended that a Certificate of Appealability be denied.
Pre-service dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In the United States District Courts which obligates district courts to screen and summarily dismiss habeas petitions that plainly show the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
II. Report
A. Background
On May 23, 2012, Beason was convicted of one count of delivery of cocaine in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County at criminal docket No. CP-25-CR-00001728-2011. ECF No. 4 at 1. See also Commonwealth v. Beason, 2013 WL 11253498, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 17, 2013). On July 12, 2012, the trial court sentenced Beason to a term of 15 to 30 months imprisonment followed by 60-months of probation. Id.
On September 8, 2016, Beason a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the instant case. ECF No. 1. Although he filled out and submitted his petition on the standard form entitled "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody," Beason's petition did not include any grounds for relief. See, generally, ECF No. 1. Moreover, because Beason did not pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court issued an order on September 29, 2016, administratively closing this case. ECF No. 2. The Court advised Beason that he could reopen this action by "either pay[ing] the $5.00 filing fee, or fil[ing] a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis." Id.
On December 12, 2016, Beason mailed another habeas corpus petition to the Court challenging the same underlying state conviction and presenting three grounds for relief. See Beason v. Attorney General, No. 1:16-cv-297 (W.D. Pa). Beason also submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It is unclear whether these filings were intended as a response to the Court's administrative closure order in 1:16-cv-223 or as a separate habeas corpus action. In any event, the Clerk opened a new civil action (l:16-cv-297) and docketed Beason's petition under that case number. Id. On August 8, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation that Beason's petition be dismissed as untimely. See Beason v. Attorney General, 2017 WL 4776339 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2017). The District Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Beason's petition as untimely on October 12, 2017. See Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-297 at ECF No. 15.
On January 25, 2021, over three years after the dismissal of his petition in l:16-cv-297, and more than four years after the last relevant docket activity in l:16-cv-223, Beason mailed the following documents to the Clerk: (1) a motion to reopen this case (1:16-cv-223); (2) a check for the $5.00 filing fee; and (3) eight pages of exhibits pertaining to a hew and unrelated criminal case apparently filed against Beason in 2020. See ECF No. 4. Aside from the caption and title, Beason's motion to reopen is entirely blank. As such, it is somewhat unclear why he is seeking to reopen this action or what relevance he believes the attached exhibits have. Moreover, because he did not include an amended petition with his filing, the Clerk docketed Beason's original petition from 2016 - the one that contained no grounds for relief- as the operative pleading in this case. The entire matter has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Although the Clerk docketed a "Memorandum" from Beason on the l:16-cv-223 docket in May 2017, that document addresses activity in l:16-cv-297 and appears to have been filed under the wrong case number.
B. Analysis
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), mandates that before a state prisoner may file a second or successive habeas corpus petition challenging a judgment of sentence that he previously challenged in a federal habeas action, he must first obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See, e.g., Magwoodv. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014). Once a petitioner moves for authorization to file a second or successive petition, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals must decide within thirty days whether there is a prima facie showing that the application satisfies § 2244's substantive requirements, set forth in § 2244(b)(2). See U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). AEDPA's allocation of "gatekeeping" responsibilities to the Courts of Appeals divests district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions that are second or. successive filings until the appropriate Court of Appeals authorizes the filing. See, e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007).
As noted above, Beason's purpose in reopening this case without submitting an amended petition (or clarifying his original petition) is somewhat opaque. What is clear, however, is that the only petition ever filed in this case addresses the same underlying judgment of sentence that Beason contested in his prior § 2254 petition at Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-297. A review of the Court of Appeals' docket establishes that Beason has not sought or received authorization to pursue a second or successive petition with respect to that conviction. Accordingly, to the extent that Beason is challenging his conviction at CP-25-CR-00001728-2011, this Court must dismiss his petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The fact that Beason technically initiated this action before he litigated 1:16-cv-297 has no bearing on whether the petition in the instant case is "second or successive." Although the petition in this case was "lodged" by the Clerk in 2016, it was never "filed" until Beason paid the filing fee in 2021. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the phrase "second or successive" does not "simply refer to all habeas filings made second or successively in time, following an initial application." Magwoodv. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332 (2010) (internal quotations and quoting sources omitted). Rather, "[a] petition is 'second or successive' if it includes 'claims that could have been raised in an earlier habeas corpus petition.'" Berry v. Kauffinan, 208 F.Supp.3d 676, 680 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (quoting Benchoffv. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812, 817 (3d Cir. 2005)). This is clearly the case here. Indeed, it seems likely that Beason inadvertently opened the action at l:16-cv-297 and filed his amended petition under that docket number in direct response to the September 29, 2016 Order administratively closing this case.
This recommendation is without prejudice to Beason's ability to seek authorization to file a second or successive petition challenging his conviction at CP-25-CR-00001728-2011 from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If the Court of Appeals grants his application, he can then file another habeas action in this Court at a new docket number. Alternatively, to the extent that Beason intends to challenge any new conviction stemming from a subsequent arrest, he must file a new habeas corpus petition addressing that conviction. The Clerk is directed to mail a standard § 2254 packet along with this Report and Recommendation.
III. Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability should be issued only when a petitioner has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)(2). Where the district court has rejected a constitutional claim on its merits, "[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 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." Id. Here, the Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether each of Petitioner's claims should be denied for the reasons given herein. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that Beason's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. It is further recommended that a Certificate of Appealability be denied and this action closed.
V. 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, 488F.3dl87(3dCir. 2007).