Opinion
Civil Action 21-288
07-07-2021
ALFON BROWN, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN J. RANSOM, et al ., Respondents.
William S. Stickman, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LISA PUPO LENIHAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 9) be dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition over which this Court lacks jurisdiction and it is also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
A. Background
Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Corpus (“Petition”) filed by Petitioner Alfon Brown (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 9.) The Petition challenges Petitioner's judgment of sentence imposed on April 18, 2008, following his convictions on two counts for second-degree murder at CP-02- CR-0006494-2005 and convictions for one count each of burglary and conspiracy at CP-02- CR-0006950-2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole for the homicide convictions, plus a consecutive term of 8-16 years imprisonment for the remaining convictions. Petitioner's judgment of sentence was confirmed on appeal by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a Memorandum issued on April 14, 2010, and leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on September 9, 2010. See Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 819 WDA 2008 (Pa. Super. April 14, 2010), appeal denied, No. 207 WAL 2010 (Pa. Sept. 9, 2010); see also Brown v. Kane, No. 2:14-cv-927, ECF No. 16-5, pp.1-15, 48 (W.D. Pa.)
On or about June 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Pennsylvania's PostConviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) that was later denied by the PCRA court on February 1, 2013. An appeal to the Superior Court followed, and on December 4, 2013, the appellate court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief. Leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not sought. See Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 488 WDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Dec. 4, 2013); see also Brown v. Kane, No. 2:14-cv-927, ECF No. 16-8, pp.31-32; ECF No. 16-10, pp.16-25 (W.D. Pa.)
Since the Superior Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief on December 4, 2013, Petitioner has continued to seek relief in the state courts through numerous pleadings, at least one which remains pending to date.
Petitioner's criminal docket sheets are matters of public record and can be viewed online at ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch.
B. Second or Successive Habeas Petitions
This is not Petitioner's first petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his 2008 judgment of sentence out of Allegheny County. Specifically, Petitioner challenged this judgment of sentence in federal habeas proceedings in July 2014 at Civil Action No. 14-927, and his federal habeas petition was denied on July 14, 2016. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied his application for a certificate of appealability on November 23, 2016. See Brown v. Kane, No. 2:14-cv-927, 2016 WL 3752914 (W.D. Pa. July 14, 2016), certificate of appealability denied, C. A. No. 16-3568 (3d Cir. Nov. 23, 2016).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) mandates that before a state prisoner may file a second or successive habeas corpus petition in which he challenges a judgment of sentence that he previously challenged in a federal habeas action, he must first obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See, e.g., Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 330-31 (2010); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014); In re Pendleton, 732 F.3d 280, 282 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Brian R. Means, POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES § 27:11, Westlaw (database updated July 2019). Once a petitioner moves for authorization to file a second or successive petition, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals must decide whether there is a prima facie showing that the application satisfies § 2244's substantive requirements, which are set forth in § 2244(b)(2). See U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(B)-(C). Importantly, AEDPA's allocation of “gatekeeping” responsibilities to the courts of appeals has divested district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions that are second or successive filings. See, e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007).
As noted above, Petitioner has already challenged his 2008 judgment of sentence out of Allegheny County via a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, the undersigned takes judicial notice of public records that reveal that Petitioner has not sought and has not been granted authorization by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition challenging that same judgment of sentence. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Petition be dismissed as an unauthorized petition over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002) (When presented with a second or successive habeas petition, district courts within the Third Circuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or transfer it to the Court of § 1631 for consideration as an application to file a second or succe recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied as Petiti showing of the denial of a constitutional right or shown that jurist his Petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition. See 473 (2000) (explaining standard for grant of a certificate of appeal address petition on the merits but on some procedural ground); W; irgin Islands, 230 F.3d 82, 89-90 (3d Cir. 2000).
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, it is respectfully recomme of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 9) be dismissed as an unauthorized se over which this Court lacks jurisdiction and it is also recommende appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Federal Magistrate Judge's Act, 28 and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, Petitioner is allowed