Trader v. Outlaw

Full title: OSSIE ROBERT TRADER v. T.C. OUTLAW, et al

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

Date published: May 24, 2006

Civil Action No. 06-cv-01948-JF (E.D. Pa. May. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-cv-01948-JF.

May 24, 2006

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN FULLAM, Senior District Judge

Petitioner was convicted of robbery in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. He has completed service of that sentence. That conviction was, however, used to enhance a subsequent sentence he is now serving in Texas.

Petitioner challenged the Delaware County conviction by seeking habeas corpus in this court (Civil Action 05-4463). Relief was denied on the merits by Order dated January 9, 2006 because, since petitioner had completed serving the sentence in question, relief was squarely precluded by the case of Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001). Petitioner has appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Undaunted, petitioner brought the present action on May 6, 2006, again challenging the validity of the Delaware County conviction and sentence — this time on the theory that the Delaware County court was without jurisdiction to try and sentence him, because the bank he robbed was federally insured, and he could have been prosecuted in federal court. This action will be dismissed without a hearing, for several reasons:

(1) Since this is a second or successive application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the same conviction, petitioner cannot proceed in this court without first obtaining permission from the Court of Appeals.

(2) The petition is legally frivolous, since the robbery, even of a federally insured institution, violates Pennsylvania law and can be prosecuted in state courts as well as in federal courts.

(3) In addition, the issues now presented could have been raised in the earlier action in this court, and would either be deemed waived, or would be barred by the res judicata effect of the earlier judgment.

For all of these reasons, leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied, based upon the legal frivolousness of the petition. This case will be dismissed with prejudice.

An Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24^th day of May 2006, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.