Opinion
1:24-CV-00145
06-14-2024
JUSTIN ZERUTH, Petitioner v. WARDEN OF SCI-FOREST, Respondent
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by state prisoner Justin Zeruth pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1-1. For the reasons set forth below, it is respectfully recommended that Rodriguez'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 a Certificate of Appealability.
II. Report
Zeruth, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), is challenging his federal conviction in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at Criminal Docket Number 2:21-CR-00355-CCW-37. By way of background, it appears that Zeruth previously filed a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court on April 8, 2024. See United States v. Zeruth, 2:21-CR-00355-CCW-37, at ECF No. 2348. Shortly thereafter, the sentencing judge issued a "Miller Notice" and Order instructing Zeruth that federal law requires him to include all his federal constitutional claims challenging his conviction in one petition and giving him the option to proceed with his motion as filed or withdraw his motion to refile "one all-inclusive 2255 petition within the one-year statutory period under [AEDPA]." Id. at ECF No. 2357. For reasons that are unknown - but, most likely, because Zeruth happens to be currently incarcerated at a state facility - Zeruth responded by withdrawing his 2255 petition and instead filing a 2254 petition. Id. at ECF No. 2381. The instant action ensued.
Section 2254 authorizes a federal court to grant a writ of habeas corpus "on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" if the prisoner demonstrates that "he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). As evidenced by the language of the statute, the purpose of a § 2254 petition is to challenge the fact of a state criminal conviction or the duration of a state sentence. Although Zeruth happens to be in a state prison right now, he is clearly challenging his federal conviction at 2:21-CR-00355-CCW-37 in the instant action. As such, his only remedy is to file a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. See Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 178 (3d Cir. 2017) (for an inmate challenging a federal conviction, the "first (and most often only) route for collateral review of his conviction or sentence is under § 2255."). His § 2254 Petition, accordingly, must be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss Zenith's Petition prior to service and deny a 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 (2000). Here, Petitioner 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, the Court should not grant him a certificate of appealability on his claim.
V. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may 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).
SUBMITTED BY:
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
Chief United States Magistrate Judge