DARREN D. BEASON, Petitioner
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al, Respondents
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
August 10, 2021
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner Darren D. Beason's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily denied because the petition is second or successive and Beason did not receive an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit authorizing this Court to consider it, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).[1] It is further recommended that a Certificate of Appealability be denied.
II. Report
A. Background
On May 23, 2012, Beason was convicted of one count of delivery of cocaine in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County at criminal docket No. CP-25-CR-00001728-2011. ECF No.
4 at 1. See also Commonwealth v. Beason, 2013 WL 11253498, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 17, 2013). On July 12, 2012, the trial court sentenced Beason to a term of 15 to 30 months imprisonment followed by 60-months of probation. Id.
On September 8, 2016, Beason a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the instant case. ECF No. 1. Although he filled out and submitted his petition on the standard form entitled "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody," Beason's petition did not include any grounds for relief. See, generally, ECF No. 1. Moreover, because Beason did not pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court issued an order on September 29, 2016, administratively closing this case. ECF No. 2. The Court advised Beason that he could reopen this action by "either pay[ing] the $5.00 filing fee, or fil[ing] a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis." Id.
On December 12, 2016, Beason mailed another habeas corpus petition to the Court challenging the same underlying state conviction and presenting three grounds for relief. See Beason v. Attorney General, No. 1:16-cv-297 (W.D. Pa). Beason also submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It is unclear whether these filings were intended as a response to the Court's administrative closure order in 1:16-cv-223 or as a separate habeas corpus action. In any event, the Clerk opened a new civil action (l:16-cv-297) and docketed Beason's petition under that case number. Id. On August 8, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation that Beason's petition be dismissed as untimely. See Beason v. Attorney General, 2017 WL 4776339 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2017). The District Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Beason's petition as untimely on October 12, 2017. See Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-297 at ECF No. 15.
On January 25, 2021, over three years after the dismissal of his petition in l:16-cv-297, and more than four years after the last relevant[2] docket activity in l:16-cv-223, Beason mailed the following documents to the Clerk: (1) a motion to reopen this case (1:16-cv-223); (2) a check for the $5.00 filing fee; and (3) eight pages of exhibits pertaining to a hew and unrelated criminal case apparently filed against Beason in 2020. See ECF No. 4. Aside from the caption and title, Beason's motion to reopen is entirely blank. As such, it is somewhat unclear why he is seeking to reopen this action or what relevance he believes the attached exhibits have. Moreover, because he did not include an amended petition with his filing, the Clerk docketed Beason's original petition from 2016 - the one that contained no grounds for relief- as the operative pleading in this case. The entire matter has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
B. Analysis
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), mandates that before a state prisoner may file a second or successive habeas corpus petition challenging a judgment of sentence that he previously challenged in a federal habeas action, he must first obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See, e.g., Magwoodv. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014). Once a petitioner moves for authorization to file a second or successive petition, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals must decide within thirty days whether there is a prima facie showing that the application satisfies § 2244's substantive requirements, set forth in § 2244(b)(2). See U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). AEDPA's allocation of "gatekeeping" responsibilities to the Courts of Appeals
divests district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions that are second or. successive filings until the appropriate Court of Appeals authorizes the filing. See, e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007).
As noted above, Beason's purpose in reopening this case without submitting an amended petition (or clarifying his original petition) is somewhat...
