Opinion
2-17-cv-1338
10-26-2017
MAURICE B. GOINS, EB-7972, Petitioner, v. KEVIN KAUFFMAN, Respondent.
REPORT and RECOMMEDATION I. Recommendation:
It is respectfully recommended that the application of Maurice B. Goins for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as this Court lacks authority to entertain it and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, that a certificate of appealabililty be denied. II. Report:
Maurice B. Goins, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon has presented an "application for a writ of habeas corpus" which he has been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis.
Goins is presently serving a twenty to forty year sentence imposed on November 9, 1999, following his conviction by a jury of criminal homicide at No. CP-02-CR-8059-1998 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
See: Application as supplemented by the prior filings in this Court.
However, this is not Goins' first federal petition challenging this conviction. At 04-cv-1300 Goins filed a habeas corpus petition which was dismissed as untimely on June 30, 2005 and a certificate of appealability was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 21, 2005. At 09-cv-1484 he submitted a habeas petition which was dismissed as successive on February 9, 2010. At 12-cv-711 he submitted another petition which was dismissed on August 2, 2011 for failure to prosecute. At 2:12-cv-1598 he filed a fourth federal habeas corpus petition challenging that same conviction. The latter petition was dismissed on November 20, 2012 as time barred and a certificate of appealability was denied. No appeal was pursued. He filed his fifth petition seeking to challenge his state court conviction which was docketed at 2:14-cv-1683. The latter was transferred to the Court of Appeals for review as a successive petition. On February 18, 2015 the Court of Appeals denied leave to file a successive petition. Undeterred, Goins has now submitted a sixth petition again seeking to challenge the same conviction. In support of his latest application, Goins states:
Goins also filed a "petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum" at 2:12-cv-373 which was dismissed as meritless on November 20, 2012. --------
U.S. Constitution Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. This was violated when I was not brought to trial in 70 days through no fault of myself or my attorney. I was brought to trial in 408 days clearly violating my 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed into law on April 24, 1996, included several major reforms to the federal habeas corpus laws. As part of this habeas corpus reform, Congress amended 28 U.S.C.§ 2244 to prohibit district courts from entertaining claims presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application unless the appropriate federal court of appeals authorizes such filing. The relevant amended language provides as follows:
(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.
(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.
Because the instant petition was submitted without first gaining leave of the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it, and it is subject to dismissal.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the application of Maurice B. Goins for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, that a certificate of appealability be denied.
Litigants who seek to challenge this Report and Recommendation must seek review by the district judge by filing objections within fourteen (14) days of this date and mailing them to United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh PA 15219-1957. Failure to file timely objections will waive the right to appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge Filed: October 26, 2017