Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-cv-964
09-10-2021
PHILLIP REHWALD, Petitioner, v. SUPT. MICHAEL ZAKEN, et al., Respondents.
Judge Arthur J. Schwab Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoner Phillip Rehwald (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Federal district courts have a pre-service duty to screen and summarily dismiss habeas petitions that plainly show the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (a district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). For the reasons discussed below, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss the petition prior to service.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background Petitioner is a state prisoner currently housed at SCI Greene. In May 2020, he commenced his first federal habeas proceeding in this Court by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the judgment of sentence imposed upon him by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at criminal docket number CP-02-CR-6354-2015.
Petitioner's first federal habeas case is docketed at Rehwald v. Superintendent Zaken, et al., No. 2:20-cv-689 (W.D. Pa.).
Petitioner is currently challenging his judgment of sentence in state court in a collateral proceeding he brought under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9541 et seq. Therefore, this Court issued an order that stayed his federal habeas case at No. 2:20-cv-689 until the conclusion of the litigation of his PCRA proceeding, including any appeal to a state appellate court.
The Respondents in Petitioner's federal habeas case at No. 2:20-cv-689 provide the Court with periodic status reports. They filed their most recent report on August 2, 2021 and advised that Petitioner's appeal of the Common Pleas Court's order dismissing his PCRA motion is pending before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at docket number 362 WDA 2021. Petitioner recently commenced the instant federal habeas case at this civil action number (No. 2:21-cv-964) by filing a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1.) In this petition, he challenges the judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas at CP-02-CR-6354-2015. (Id. at p. 1.) As discussed above, that is the same judgment of sentence he is challenging in his federal habeas case at No. 2:20-cv-689.
Attached as exhibits to the petition are motions for leave to file original process and for mandamus relief, which Petitioner submitted to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in July 2021.
(ECF No. 1 p. 12; see also ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2.) Also attached is a letter, dated July 8, 2021, sent to Petitioner by Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's Office of Prothonotary, in which it explained that it would not process his motions, explaining:
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 121(g), “[w]here there is counsel of record, a party may file only the following documents pro se: (1) a notice of appeal; (ii) a request to change or remove counsel; (iii) a response to a motion to withdraw that has been filed by counsel of record; (iv) a complaint that existing counsel has abandoned the party;
or (v) an application to file a petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc. Any other document that a party attempts to file pro se will be noted on the docket but not accepted for filing. This rule is not intended to provide an independent basis for jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist.” (Emphasis added.)
Because you do not presently have a matter before the Supreme Court, there is no docket here for your attempted defective filing to be noted on. (The file number 34 WT 2021 is for tracking purposes only). However, a copy of this letter [and] your documents are being sent to Attorney Charles R. Pass, III, who is your attorney of record in the appeal pending in the Superior Court at No. 362 WDA 2021.
(ECF No. 1-1.) Petitioner claims that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania violated his rights under the
Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it “refused to entertain” his motions. (ECF
No. 1 at p. 5.) As relief, he seeks an order from this Court directing that his judgment of sentence at CP-02-CR-6354-2015 be vacated and that he be immediately released from custody. (Id. at p.
15.)
B. Discussion
In relevant part, in order to obtain habeas relief under § 2254 a state prisoner must demonstrate that the state judgment of sentence responsible for his confinement was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”). Importantly, errors of state law are not cognizable. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Real v. Shannon, 600 F.3d 302, 309-10 (3d Cir. 2010).
The claims for relief that Petitioner brings in the instant habeas petition are not cognizable under § 2254. This Court has no authority to review a state court's application of state law, including its rules of appellate procedure. Id.; see, e.g., Priester v. Vaughn, 382 F.3d 394, 402 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[f]ederal courts reviewing habeas claims cannot ‘reexamine state court determinations on state-law questions.'”) (quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68). Additionally, because Petitioner is currently challenging his judgment of sentence in a PCRA proceeding, any alleged error made by a state court at this time is not cognizable for the reasons explained by the Court of Appeals in Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941 (3d Cir. 1998):
The federal courts are authorized to provide collateral relief where a petitioner is in state custody or under a federal sentence imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254, 2255. Thus, the federal role in reviewing an application for habeas corpus is limited to evaluating what occurred in the state or federal proceedings that actually led to the petitioner's conviction; what occurred in the petitioner's collateral proceeding does not enter into the habeas calculation. Id. at 954 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[A]lleged errors in collateral proceedings are not a proper basis for habeas relief from the original conviction.”).
Finally, Plaintiff must raise all claims challenging his state court judgment of sentence in his federal habeas case at No. 2:20-cv-689. See Rule 2(c)(1) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (petitioner “must specify all the grounds for relief available” in a single § 2254 petition.) Therefore, to the extent that Petitioner seeks to bring any new and cognizable federal habeas claim challenging his state court judgment of sentence, he may do so only when the Court lifts the stay in that case and only in accordance with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies to habeas cases.
C. Certificate of Appealability
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition. AEDPA limits the issuance of a certificate of appealability to circumstances where “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Petitioner has failed to allege the denial of a constitutional right that would entitle him to habeas relief, let alone demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of such a right. Accordingly, it is recommended that no certificate of appealability should issue.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, deny a certificate of appealability, and close this case. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, Petitioner is allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Order to file objections to this Report and Recommendation.