Opinion
Civil Action 24-791
06-06-2024
DONALD TROUTMAN, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY; and WARDEN DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON, Respondents.
Mark R. Hornak, Chief District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ECF NO. 3
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”), ECF No. 3, be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is a second or successive federal habeas petition that was filed by Petitioner without prior permission from the Court of Appeals. It is further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
Donald Troutman (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner who, for reasons that are unclear from the record, currently is held at the Dauphin County Prison in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. See Inmate/Parolee Locator, available at https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gOv/#/ (last visited June 5,2024). This case was initiated on May 29, 2024, with the receipt of the Petition. ECF No. 1 -1. Petitioner moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the same date, which was granted on June 4, 2024 ECF Nos. 1 and 4.
In the Petition, Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his criminal conviction for multiple sex crimes, at Docket No. CP-02-CR-4416-2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 3 at 1.
See Docket, Com, v. Troutman, No CP-02-CR-4416-2007 (C.C.P. Allegheny County), available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0004416-2007&dnh=KB7rOUEwGplpkDkse7tmiA%3D%3D (last visited June 6, 2024).
This is the same criminal case from which Petitioner previously sought habeas relief in Troutman v. Commonwealth, No. 16-266E (W.D. Pa. filed Nov. 8, 2016). See No. 16-266E, ECF No. 5 at 1 (invoking Petitioner's convictions at CP-02-CR-4416-2007). On May 26, 2017, the undersigned grant a motion to dismiss by respondents in No. 16-266E because the petition was untimely. No. 16-266E, ECF No. 19 at 1. The petition in No. 16-266E was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability denied. Id. at 12. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit similarly denied a certificate of appealability on October 12, 2017. No. 16-266E, ECF No. 25.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 allows a person in custody due to the judgment of a state court to seek a writ of habeas corpus based “on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). However, with the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) in 1996, Congress chose to enact gatekeeping provisions in order to limit the number of prisoners filing multiple petitions for the writ. The AEDPA provides, in relevant part:
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section 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.28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added).
As stated above, Petitioner seeks habeas relief from the same criminal conviction in the present federal habeas matter that he attacked in his previous habeas case at No. 16-266E. Cf. Munchinski v. Wilson, No. 07-1712, 2009 WL 2750254, at *3-5 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2009) (discussing second and successive petitions). Petitioner provides no indication that he has been granted leave to proceed by the Court of Appeals. As a result, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address the habeas claims that Petitioner has raised in this successive Petition. Therefore, the Petition should be dismissed. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); see also Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 217 (3d Cir. 2007).
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, this Court may dismiss the Petition if it plainly appears on its face that the Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Rule 4 provides in relevant part that:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.In interpreting Rule 4, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 observe that:
28 U.S.C. § 2243 requires that the writ shall be awarded, or an order to show cause issued, “unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Such consideration may properly encompass any exhibits attached to the petition, including, but not limited to, transcripts, sentencing records, and copies of state court opinions. The judge may order any of these items for his consideration if they are not yet included with the petition.
A certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable that this Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with this case. See, e.g.. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). (explaining standard for grant of a certificate of appealability where court does not address petition on the merits but on some procedural basis).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the instant Petition, ECF No. 3, be dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).
Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.