Opinion
1:23-cv-154
11-03-2023
EDMUND D. THORNTON, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MCKEAN COUNTY, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that Petitioner Edmund D. Thornton's Petition be dismissed without service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In the United States District Courts because § 2254 does not provide an appropriate or available federal remedy for his claims. See id. (stating that 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). It is further recommended that the Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, his allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972).
Alternatively, to the extent that Petitioner is attempting to proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissal is recommended pursuant to the screening provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II. Report
Petitioner initiated this case on May 19, 2023, by filing a document styled an “Appeal” without reference to any basis for federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. In his initial filing, Petitioner stated that he filed a motion in “McKean County Court” concerning jury tampering in an underlying criminal case at “CR 300-1998” on May 1, 2023. Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, the state court “intentionally misrepresent[ed]” that filing as a P.C.R.A. petition “to establish a basis for dismissal.” Id. Petitioner responded by filing “[t]his appeal. .. simultaneously in state and federal courts as more persuasive to merit of claim.” Id. at 2. He does not request any relief. Id.
Upon receipt, the Clerk construed this action as a Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and docketed it accordingly. ECF No. 1. Noting that Petitioner had not paid the filing fee or moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court issued an Order administratively closing this action and requiring Petitioner to refile his petition using the standard form for 2254 petitions. ECF No. 5. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed a response in which he clarifies that he “did not file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” but rather “crossfiled appeals in the PA Superior Court (still open) and the U.S. Western District.” Id. at 2.
Based on the representations in his latest filing, it appears that Petitioner is attempting to appeal a state court judgment directly to this Court while simultaneously pursuing his state appellate remedies with respect to that same decision. It is axiomatic, however, that only “the Supreme Court of the United States, and not the lower federal courts, has jurisdiction to review a state court decision.” Desi's Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411,419 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Parkview Associates, Pshp. v. City of Leb., 225 F.ed 321, 325 (3d Cir. 2000)). As explained by our Court of Appeals:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a decision by “the highest court of a State in which a decision [may] be had.” Since Congress has never conferred a similar power of review on the United States District Courts, the Supreme Court has inferred that Congress did not intend to empower District Courts to review state court decisions. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303; Gulla, 146 F.3d at 171.Id. at 419.
Petitioner's filing runs afoul of this well-established proposition. Consequently, it is respectfully recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner's claims for lack of jurisdiction and that no Certificate of Appealability issue.
III. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).