From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. Patrick

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 24, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-225J (W.D. Pa. Jul. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-225J.

July 24, 2006


Report and Recommendation


Recommendation

Petitioner, incarcerated at S.C.I. Houtzdale, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I recommend that it be dismissed as moot, without prejudice to reopening it.

Report

Petitioner is serving a life sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County on April 14, 1996, after he was found guilty by a jury of the murder of his wife. Petitioner proceeded pro se at trial (with members of the Office of the Public Defender of Clearfield County present as standby counsel) after moving without success to have someone other than the Public Defender represent him.

Petitioner attempted to appeal his conviction beginning in June 1996, with the filing of a first petition under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. After several years and several changes of counsel, the trial court appointed Matthew Taladay, Esquire, as counsel. Taladay successfully moved to reinstate petitioner's right to file a direct appeal, and represented petitioner on direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On January 18, 2006, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court because the trial court "deprived [Allen] of his right to counsel by failing to ensure that his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." Commonwealth v. Allen, No. 43 WDA 2005, slip op. at 21 (Pa.Super. January 18, 2006), petition for allocatur filed at 71 WAL 2006 (Pa.) The Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion is attached to this Report and Recommendation as an exhibit. The Commonwealth has filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which is pending.

Petitioner's petition was filed in September, 2004, only days before the trial court granted the withdrawal of former counsel for petitioner and appointed Taladay. The petition claims (1) that there has been an inordinate delay in the state courts; and (2) that he was denied his right to file a direct appeal. docket no. 3, Petition ¶ 13(a) and (b). Petitioner sought as relief a change of venue for state court proceedings (because the District Attorney who prosecuted him is now a member of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County), an order requiring an answer to his PCRA petition, an evidentiary hearing, appointment of counsel, and an investigation by the U.S. Attorney. id. This court's authority is limited to remedying violations of the constitution or laws of the United States, and the petition properly seeks two things: that this court excuse the exhaustion of state court remedies due to the inordinate delay in the state court appeals process; and that this court remedy the denial of his right to file a direct appeal. This court cannot order a change of venue (and would not if it could since the presence of a former prosecutor on the bench does not constitute a basis for a change of venue) or supervise in any other way criminal prosecutions in the state court, nor can it order the executive branch of the federal government to investigate a state court.

The Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County and Pennsylvania Superior Court have remedied the alleged denial of a direct appeal by allowing a direct appeal nunc pro tunc, and have provided relief beyond that sought in the habeas corpus petition by ordering a new trial; at the same time, the action by the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ended the delay in the state court. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases or controversies. This requires the petitioner to have standing to sue, not only at the time he filed his petition, but throughout the pendency of the matter. The petitioner must allege that he has suffered a legally cognizable injury, that the injury is fairly traceable to the respondent's conduct, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818-19 (1997). Petitioner clearly has met the first two elements of standing: the question at issue is whether, in light of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision, it is "likely," that petitioner's the injury will be "redressed by the requested relief." Id., quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Since petitioner has been granted not only his direct appeal, but has been successful in that appeal, he has no reasonable probability of obtaining any tangible benefit from this court, because all he seeks in his petition duplicates relief already obtained in state court. Put another way, petitioner has no standing to seek injunctive relief unless it is "likely," see Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 212 (1995) (holding that standing existed because alleged that future injury was "likely" or "extremely likely") that he will suffer from a deprivation of his constitutional rights in the future. Given the attention this matter has received in the appellate court, I cannot find that undue delay from this point forward is likely, or even probable, and a remote possibility is not sufficient to support habeas jurisdiction. See e.g. Diaz v. Duckworth, 143 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998) (dismissing habeas petition seeking restoration of good time credit for petitioner who had been deported during pendency of petition).

Petitioner has received from the state court all of the relief he properly sought from this court. Therefore, the instant petition is moot and should be dismissed, without prejudice to reopening it if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reverses the Pennsylvania Superior Court's grant of a new trial, or there is inordinate delay in a ruling on the petition for allocatur.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1), the parties are given notice that they have ten days to serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation.


Summaries of

Allen v. Patrick

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 24, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-225J (W.D. Pa. Jul. 24, 2006)
Case details for

Allen v. Patrick

Case Details

Full title:JACK E. ALLEN, Petitioner, v. GEORGE PATRICK, SUPERINTENDENT, S.C.I…

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

Date published: Jul 24, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-225J (W.D. Pa. Jul. 24, 2006)