Opinion
Civil Action 23-1012
08-15-2023
ABDULLAH HANEEF IBN-SADIIKA, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT JOHN VIRELLO and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Lisa Pupo Lenihan, United States Magistrate Judge
I. RECCOMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5) be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. It is also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
Petitioner Abdullah Haneef Ibn-Sadiika (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner incarcerated in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He is serving a life sentence for convictions of first-degree murder and robbery after an Allegheny County jury found him guilty at Case Nos. CP-02-CR-0010761-1984 and CP-02-CR-0011275-1984 on June 27, 1985. His judgment of sentence was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on March 27, 1987, and his petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on October 1, 1987. See Commonwealth v. Ibn-Sadiika, 526 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Super. 1987) (unpublished memorandum); Commonwealth v. Ibn-Sadiika, 532 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1987). Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that Petitioner has filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, wherein he asserts two claims based on the Commonwealth's alleged suppression of favorable evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
The following facts of the crime were summarized by the state court as follows:
[A]t about 9:00 p.m. on March 16, 1983, [Petitioner] left the residence he was sharing with his girlfriend[, Crystal] Sanders[,] in Mount Oliver, Pennsylvania.... [Petitioner] and Ms. Sanders had been experiencing financial difficulties[,] and [Petitioner] informed [Ms.] Sanders that he was going to get some money and that he might have to kill someone to do it. [Petitioner] returned home at approximately 2:00 a.m. with blood stains on one of his shoes and on a pair of black gloves.... [Petitioner] was carrying a gym bag which contained a jar, a small white pearl box containing a set of pearl handled steak knives, two checks[,] each of which were the victim's personal checks made out to the [Petitioner,] in which one of the checks the [Petitioner's] name was spelled incorrectly, various amounts of foreign currency and collector coins, various gold necklaces, stickpins, rings and earrings, a few of which were engraved with the victim's initials.
Testimony given by Ms. Sanders at trial provided that [Petitioner] explained to her that the items in the gym bag were obtained from an elderly woman in the Homewood area of Pittsburgh. He informed Ms. Sanders that he forced the victim to write out a second check because she misspelled his name on the first.... [Petitioner] admitted to [Ms.] Sanders that he had stabbed the victim and left her to die in her bedroom because she could have identified him.Commonwealth v. Ibn-Sadiika, 2023 WL 3145934, at *1 (Pa. Super. Apr. 28, 2023) (quoting PCRA Court Opinion, 10/3/22, at 1-2) (citations to the record omitted).
A. Summary of Petitioner's federal habeas proceedings
A summary of Petitioner's state court criminal direct and collateral appeal proceedings will not be set forth herein.
Petitioner first challenged his judgment of sentence at CP-02-CR-0010761-1984 and CP-02-CR-0011275-1984 in a federal habeas petition filed in this Court at 2:88-cv-41. That petition was dismissed on May 2, 1988, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability on August 8, 1988.
Petitioner again challenged his judgment of sentence in another federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court at 2:01-cv-710. That petition was dismissed as time-barred on May 16, 2001. The Third Circuit denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability on May 30, 2002. See Ibn-Sadiika v. Vaughn, C. A. No. 01-2420 (3d. Cir.).
Petitioner filed another federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court at 2:02-cv-1309. That petition was transferred to the Third Circuit for consideration as a second or successive petition on August 28, 2002. The Third Circuit denied Petitioner leave to file a second or successive petition on October 8, 2002. See In Re: Ibn-Sadiika, C. A. No. 02-3433 (3d Cir.).
Petitioner filed another federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court at 2:03-cv-1033. That petition was transferred to the Third Circuit for consideration as a second or successive petition on September 12, 2003. The Third Circuit denied Petitioner leave to file a second or successive petition on November 17, 2003. See In Re: Ibn-Sadiika, C. A. No. 03-3872 (3d Cir.).
Petitioner filed another federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court at 2:13-cv-1587. That petition was transferred to the Third Circuit for consideration as a second or successive petition on November 14, 2013. The Third Circuit granted a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case on November 22, 2013. See In re: Abdullah Ibn-Sadiika, C. A. No. 13-4453 (3d Cir.).
In addition to the above cases, Petitioner has also filed at least three applications to file second or successive petitions for writ of habeas corpus directly with the Third Circuit, all of which were denied. See In Re: Ibn-Sadika, C. A. No. 07-1859 (3d Cir. July 18, 2007); In re: Abdullah Ibn-Sadiika, C. A. No. 15-3724 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2016); In re: Abdullah Ibn-Sadiika, C. A. No. 16-3143 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2016).
B. Second or successive habeas petitions
This Court's review of the Petition is guided by Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4, a district court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition and dismiss it “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, the Court should find that summary dismissal is warranted because the Petition is an unauthorized successive petition.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a federal district court must dismiss claims asserted in a second or successive petition if those claims were “presented in a prior application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). In limited circumstances, the district court may consider claims presented in a second or successive petition if those claims were not presented in a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). However, before a state prisoner files a second or successive petition in federal district court, raising either previously-presented or newly presented claims, the prisoner must first file a motion “in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider” the second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If the court of appeals authorizes the filing of a second or successive petition, the district court must then consider whether the individual claims asserted in the petition should be dismissed under § 2244(b). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4).
This Court's records show that Petitioner has already filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court challenging his judgment of sentence out of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Petitioner does not allege, and nothing in the record suggests, that the state court entered a new judgment in Petitioner's underlying criminal case. The Petition is therefore a successive petition. Compare Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (concluding that second-in-time habeas petition was “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because state prisoner “twice brought claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court”), with Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 341-42 (2010) (explaining that “where, unlike in Burton, there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions,' an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not ‘second or successive' at all” (quoting Burton, 549 U.S. at 156)).
As this Court has previously advised Petitioner, he must obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit before filing a successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by [§ 2244(b)] 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.”) And because nothing in the record demonstrates that he obtained the requisite authorization before filing the Petition, the Court should dismiss his unauthorized successive petition, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.
It is further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied because reasonable jurists would not debate the determination that the Petition must be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5) be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. It is also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Federal Magistrate Judge's Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, Petitioner is allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. Failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.