Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-03655/USCOURTS-ca3-16-03655-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

BLD-082 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-3655

___________

GABRIEL I. PITTMAN,

Appellant

v.

FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON; 

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH; UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF THE 104TH CONGRESS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3:15-cv-01793)

District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 21, 2016

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 27, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-3655 Document: 003112523660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2017
2

Gabriel Pittman appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders dismissing his 

complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion. For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm the District 

Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

In 1998, Pittman pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania state court to third-degree murder, 

reckless endangerment, and carrying a firearm without a license, and he was sentenced to 

26 to 59 years’ imprisonment. See Commonwealth v. Pittman, 737 A.2d 272, 273 (Pa. 

Super. Ct. 1999). After an unsuccessful appeal, Pittman filed a petition under 

Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), and was denied relief. 

Subsequently, Pittman filed several additional PCRA petitions that the PCRA court 

dismissed as untimely. Pittman has also unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in 

federal court and has filed multiple unsuccessful civil suits related to his state criminal 

case. 

In 2015, Pittman filed a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in the U.S. District 

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that two provisions of the 

Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) are unconstitutional. 

Specifically, he challenged 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)’s one-year time limit and § 2244(b)’s 

restrictions on second or successive petitions. The District Court dismissed the complaint 

as frivolous, concluding, inter alia, that Pittman’s arguments challenging AEDPA lacked 

Case: 16-3655 Document: 003112523660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2017
3

merit and that his claim for money damages was barred. Pittman sought reconsideration, 

and the District Court denied the motion. Pittman appeals.1

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over 

the District Court’s order dismissing Pittman’s complaint, see Allah v. Seiverling, 229 

F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000), and review its denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of 

discretion, see Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 

(3d Cir. 1999). We may affirm on any ground apparent in the record. See, e.g., Hughes 

v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 122 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001).

III.

The District Court did not err in dismissing Pittman’s complaint. In short, 

Pittman’s challenges to § 2244 are without merit. Courts have repeatedly determined that 

the time limits imposed by AEDPA are constitutional. See Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 

1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2001); Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 977-78 (10th Cir. 1998). Similarly, the restrictions on 

second or successive habeas petitions do not violate the constitution. See Felker v. 

Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 663-64 (1996).

Furthermore, to the extent that Pittman is attempting to win damages on a claim of 

an unlawful conviction, he must first succeed in having his conviction overturned before 

 

1 He was notified that his case was subject to possible summary action. He submits a 

motion seeking permission to file a late response to that notice and a corresponding 

Case: 16-3655 Document: 003112523660 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/27/2017
4

he can seek such relief. A state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable in a civil 

rights action if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity 

of his conviction or sentence,” unless the prisoner can show that the conviction or 

sentence has been invalidated. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997) (quoting 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)).

In opposing summary action, Pittman claims that the screening procedures of 

§ 1915(e) violate both the Fourth Amendment to, and Article III of, the U.S. Constitution. 

Pittman does not cite any authority for his challenges, and we are not aware of any. And 

courts have widely upheld § 1915’s screening provisions. See generally Grayson v. 

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-14 (3d Cir. 2003) (discussing the application of 

§ 1915(e)); cf. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a 

separation of powers challenge to a different provision of § 1915). Pittman also contests 

the District Court’s alternative ruling that his constitutional challenges to AEDPA are 

barred on statute-of-limitations grounds. Because Pittman’s underlying challenges are 

meritless, we need not decide this claim. 

In his Rule 59(e) motion, Pittman essentially reiterated arguments that the District 

Court had rejected in dismissing his complaint. The District Court therefore did not err in 

denying that motion. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (per 

curiam).

 

response.

Case: 16-3655 Document: 003112523660 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/27/2017
5

IV.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Pittman’s motion to 

file a late response to the notice of possible summary action is granted.

Case: 16-3655 Document: 003112523660 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/27/2017