Lewis v. McGinley

1

JIBREEL LEWIS v. THOMAS S. MCGINLEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Civil Action No. 23-3973

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

January 16, 2024

MEMORANDUM

KEARNEY, J.

Congress requires a person seeking federal habeas relief from a state court conviction to bring his claim within 365 days of the date the state court conviction became final. We today review an incarcerated man's habeas petition filed 401 days after the last day he could timely petition for habeas relief. We afforded the incarcerated man extensions to explain how Congress's limitations period does not bar his petition. He cannot do so. We deny and dismiss his habeas petition as untimely and with no grounds to equitably toll the limitations period. We find no basis for an evidentiary hearing. We deny a certificate of appealability.

I. Background

Jibreel Lewis petitioned for habeas relief from a life sentence after a Philadelphia County jury found him guilty on July 8, 2015 of murder, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses.^[1] Mr. Lewis appealed from his conviction on December 4, 2015.^[2] Mr. Lewis asserted trial error by the Honorable Sandy L.V. Byrd for failing to suppress statements he made during his interrogation and for barring a defense expert from testifying to his diminished capacity.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his conviction on December 8, 2017, concluding Judge Byrd comprehensively considered and properly disposed of Mr. Lewis's arguments concerning the alleged trial errors.^[3] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Mr. Lewis's petition for allowance of appeal on June 5, 2018.^[4]

Mr. Lewis files his first federal habeas petition before filing a petition for collateral relief in state court.

Mr. Lewis did not file a petition for collateral relief under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act.^[5] He instead pro se petitioned for habeas relief in federal court on July 15, 2018.^[6] Mr. Lewis raised four grounds for habeas relief: (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (2) “[f]ake prosecution by bad faith and fraud through court corruption [and] corrupt titled persons of the court [sic]”; (3) “[t]he nullity of Commonwealth's petition requesting extension to file brief to Superior Court for appellee in an untimely manner after missing the deadline, this court did not have subject matter jurisdiction [sic]”; and (4) “[l]ack of statutory authorization for the illegal imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment of [first] or [second] degree murder [sic].”^[7]

Judge Reuter thoroughly reviewed the record leading him to recommend Judge Tucker deny his habeas petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act.^[8] Judge Rueter recommended Judge Tucker dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice rather than staying the petition pending exhaustion of state court remedies given the ample time Mr. Lewis had to exhaust his claims in state court.^[9]

Judge Tucker adopted Judge Rueter's recommendation and dismissed Mr. Lewis's habeas petition without prejudice to exhaust his state court remedies on March 5, 2019.^[10]

Mr. Lewis then filed his first Post Conviction Relief Act petition in state court.

Mr. Lewis pro se petitioned for relief under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act one week later.^[11] Judge Byrd appointed Post Conviction Relief Act counsel Attorney Dennis Turner who filed a “no-merit letter” and moved to withdraw as counsel under Turner and Finley.^[12] Mr. Lewis raised four issues in seeking post conviction relief: (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to charge and try him “because the laws underlying the charges are null and void because they were improperly enacted into law”; (2) “[t]rial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by waiving [Mr. Lewis's] formal arraignment because it rendered [Mr. Lewis] as having not been charged at all”; (3) “[Mr. Lewis] is entitled to PCRA relief because [his trial counsel], Seth Williams, Esquire, former District Attorney of Philadelphia County, and Kathleen Kane, Esquire, former Pennsylvania Attorney General, each were under investigation and then charged, and convicted of various crimes during the pendency of [Mr. Lewis's] case”; and (4) “[t]he entire PCRA process, from the standard pre-printed PCRA form to the appointment of counsel who then files a no-merit letter is predicated on fraud.”^[13]

Pennsylvania Judge the Honorable Tracy Brandeis-Roman issued a notice of intent to dismiss the Post Conviction Relief Act petition without a hearing.^[14] Mr. Lewis did not respond to the notice. Judge Brandeis-Roman dismissed Mr. Lewis's Post Conviction Relief Act petition as meritless on November 19, 2020 and granted Attorney Turner's motion to withdraw.^[15]

Mr. Lewis appealed the dismissal of his Post Conviction Relief Act petition to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court on February 4, 2022 affirmed Judge Brandeis-Roman's dismissal of Mr. Lewis's Post Conviction Relief Act petition and granted counsel's petition to withdraw.^[16] The Superior Court concluded Mr. Lewis's claim the trial court lacked jurisdiction is without merit, Mr. Lewis failed to establish prejudice in connection with his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, Mr. Lewis's claim seeking relief on an allegation of a federal investigation into his trial counsel, District Attorney Williams, and Attorney General Kane during the time of his prosecution is overbroad, undeveloped, and waived, and Mr. Lewis failed to develop his fourth claim alleging fraud in the Post Conviction Relief Act process.^[17] Mr. Lewis did not appeal the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision on his Post Conviction Relief Act petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Mr. Lewis filed a second Post Conviction Relief Act petition in state court.

Mr. Lewis then filed a second Post Conviction Relief Act petition on December 28, 2021, during the appeal of his first Post Conviction Relief Act petition.^[18] Mr. Lewis supplemented his second petition on March 17, 2022.^[19]

Pennsylvania Judge the Honorable Scott DiClaudio notified Mr. Lewis of his intent to dismiss the second Post Conviction Relief Act petition on September 27, 2023.^[20] Mr. Lewis responded by filing a “Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Allowance for Habeas Corpus Review by the Court - Response to Court['s] Notice of Intent to Dismiss Due to Time Limitations,” seeking state habeas relief.^[21] Judge DiClaudio denied Mr. Lewis's second Post Conviction Relief Act petition as untimely under Pennsylvania statute.^[22] Judge DiClaudio explained Mr. Lewis's second petition is untimely and did not plead or prove an exception to the Act's time bar.^[23]

Mr. Lewis did not appeal Judge DiClaudio's October 17, 2023 decision dismissing his second Post Conviction Relief Act petition.

Mr. Lewis filed a second habeas petition.

Mr. Lewis returned here again petitioning for habeas relief on October 4, 2023, between the time of Judge DiClaudio's notice of intent to dismiss his second Post Conviction Relief Act petition and Judge DiClaudio's dismissal of the second Post Conviction Relief Act petition as untimely. Mr. Lewis raised one ground for habeas relief: the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction “fraud/usurpation” [sic].^[24]

We ordered the Commonwealth to file a status of Mr. Lewis's second Post Conviction Relief Act petition in state court.^[25] We also ordered the Commonwealth to answer Mr. Lewis's habeas petition, specifically addressing whether the petition is time-barred or can proceed under equitable tolling doctrines.^[26] We allowed Mr. Lewis to file a reply to the Commonwealth's answer by January 5, 2024.^[27] Mr. Lewis did not do so.

He instead moved to dismiss his own habeas petition challenging our jurisdiction over his habeas petition.^[28] We denied Mr. Lewis's Motion to dismiss his own habeas petition after invoking our jurisdiction by filing it here and reminded Mr. Lewis we raised concerns regarding exhaustion requiring the Commonwealth's response.^[29] We denied Mr. Lewis's Motion to dismiss without prejudice to promptly file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal if he no longer wished to pursue his habeas petition.^[30] Mr. Lewis did not do so.

The Commonwealth timely described the status of Mr. Lewis's second Post Conviction Relief Act petition dismissed by Judge DiClaudio on October 17, 2023 and answered Mr. Lewis's habeas petition.^[31] The Commonwealth now asks we dismiss with prejudice Mr. Lewis's habeas petition as untimely and without a hearing.^[32]

II. Analysis

The Commonwealth asks us to dismiss Mr. Lewis's second habeas petition because (1) it is untimely; and (2) equitable tolling does not apply. Mr. Lewis did not reply to the Commonwealth nor did he offer grounds for equitable tolling of his untimely habeas petition. We first determine whether Mr. Lewis's October 4, 2023 habeas petition is timely. We conclude it is not timely. We next consider whether equitable tolling applies to excuse his untimely habeas petition. We conclude equitable tolling does not apply and dismiss Mr. Lewis's habeas petition.

A. Mr. Lewis's habeas petition is untimely.

Congress, through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, provides a one-year statute of limitations to a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a state court judgment.^[33] Congress provides the limitation period generally begins to run from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”^[34]

Mr Lewis's conviction became final on September 3, 2018: ninety-days after the Pennsylvania...