From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piner v. Salamon

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 16, 2024
3:22-cv-190-KRG-KAP (W.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2024)

Opinion

3:22-cv-190-KRG-KAP

01-16-2024

KENNETH J. PINER, Petitioner v. BOBBI JO SALAMON, WARDEN S.C.I. ROCKVIEW, Respondent


MEMORANDUM ORDER

Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge

Petitioner's motion at ECF no. 20 to stay or remand the habeas corpus petition “for further development of the record” is denied.

Remand for development of a record (as if the state courts were mere investigative agencies for federal courts) is inappropriate under any circumstance. A stay is appropriate under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276-78 (2005), when the petitioner has good cause for failure to exhaust claims, the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no evidence that the petitioner seeks to use the stay as a delaying tactic. Petitioner does not allege he is currently attempting to exhaust any claims in state court under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46, and his oblique reference to a third-party opinion about law enforcement in Blair County does not allow any conclusion that any hypothetical claim would be potentially meritorious.


Summaries of

Piner v. Salamon

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 16, 2024
3:22-cv-190-KRG-KAP (W.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2024)
Case details for

Piner v. Salamon

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH J. PINER, Petitioner v. BOBBI JO SALAMON, WARDEN S.C.I. ROCKVIEW…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 16, 2024

Citations

3:22-cv-190-KRG-KAP (W.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2024)