2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-22-2010 

# Mi k e B uxt on v . C ommon we alth of P A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1203

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Mi ke B uxt on v

. C ommon we alth of P

A" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 565. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/565

### AL D- 15 0 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 10- 1203 MI KE BUXTON, Appe l l ant

v. TH E C OM MO NWEA LT H O F P ENNS YL VANIA OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e WesternD istrict o f P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci v. No. 09- c v- 01626) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble Ter re nce F. McVerr

y S ub mittedf

o r P o ssib le S umm ary

A ctio nP ursu ant to T h irdC ircu it L.A.R. 27 .4 and I.O.P. 10.6 andonAp pell ant’ s Request fo r a Ce rt i fi c at e of Appe a l abi l i ty Unde r 28 U. S. C. § 2253( c ) ( 1) Apri l29, 2010 Befo re : SLO VITE R, AM BR O, and S MITH , Circuit Judg es ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Sept e m

be r 22, 2010) OP INI ON PER CURI AM. Mike Bu xtonappeal s from the Dis tric t Court ’s order dis mis sing his petition f or a writ of habeas corpus un der 28 U .S.C. § 22 54 fo r fai lureto exhaust avail ablest at e c ourt re m edie s. Fo r the re as on s that follow, we willsumm arily vacatethe Dis tric t Court ’s2



### o rd er an drem an df

o r f urth er p ro ceed in g s. I. B uxt on ent er ed a pl ea of gui l t yi n L aw r ence C ount y , Penns y l vani a, t o del i veryof a
c o n tro lled su b sta n c e , an d w a s s e n ten c e d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 to six m o n th s to f iv e y e a rs in pr i s on. ( D ocketN o. 37- cr - 344- 2005. ) T he tr i al cour t ’ s docketr efl ect s thatB uxt on fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the s ent ence , butthen w i t hdr ew the mot i on. H e di d not fi l e an a ppeal . I n J anuary2009, he fi l ed a pe t i t i on underthe Pos t - C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct ( “PC R A ”) . T he tr i al cour tdeni ed the PC R A pet i t i on. B uxt on appea l ed thatrul i ng, but t hen as ked thatt he appe al be di s cont i nued, a r eques tthatthe Super i orC our tgr ant ed on Sept ember11, 2009. ( D ocketN o. 783 W D A 2009. ) T her e i s no r ecor d of B uxt on havi ng so u g h t o th e r re v iew in sta te c o u rt. In 2 0 0 8 , ap p a re n tlya f

ter b e in g p a ro led , B u x to n e n ter e d a n o th e r g u iltyp lea in L a w re n c e C o u n ty, th is tim e to p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d e liv e r a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . (D o ck et N o . 3 7 -cr-89 8 -20 0 7 . ) H e w as se n tenc ed o n M arc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , to o n e to f ive y ea rs i n pr i s on, cons ecut i ve t o ot hers ent ence s . H e di d notappea l orfi l e a PC R A pet i t i on. T he st at e t ri al cou rtdo ckets refl ectthat, as of Jun e 20 09 , B ux t on had fi l ed lett ers , in b o th o f

h is c a s e s , c o n c e rn in g h is d e s ir e to p u rs u e P C R A re v ie w n u n c p ro tu n c . B uxt on, how ever , does notcurr ent l yhave a PC R A pet i t i on pendi ng, and he ha s notfi l ed anyaddi t i onal pl eadi ngs i n s t at e courti n ei t hercas e s i nce Sept ember2009. I n D ece m ber2009, B uxt on fi l ed a pr o s e § 2254 pet i t i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es3

D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. T h e h a b e a s p e tit io n is p o o rly
or gani zed, buti tappea r s t hatB uxt on r ai s es thr ee gr ounds forr el i ef. I n gr ounds ( 1) and ( 2) , he i ncorpor at es byr efe r ence cert ai n pr o s e “br i efs , ” w hi ch appe art o be the l et t er s t hat he fi l ed i n 2009 w i t h t he s t at e tr i al cour t , and i n t hos e br i efs he purpor t s t o r ai s e var i ous cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of pl ea c ouns el and otherchal l enges t o t he convi ct i ons and s ent ence s . I n gr ound ( 3) , B uxt on at t acks the dec i s i on of the P e n n s y lv a n ia B o a rd o f

P ro b a tio n a n d P a ro le (“ P a ro le B o a rd ” ) t o re v o k e h is p a ro le . A copyof the par ol e dec i s i on i s notatt ache d t o t he habe as pet i t i on, butB uxt on s t at es that h is p a ro le w a s re v o k e d in A p ril 2 0 0 8 . B u x to n c laim s th a t th e P a ro le B o a rd f a iled to conductt he r evoca t i on hear i ng i n acc or dance w i t h due pr oces s . A s r el i ef, he as ks the D i s t r i ctC our tt o “vac at e both s ent ence s , and r es ent ence [hi m ] t o 28 m onths t i m e s erved. ” Pt n. at16. A l t ernat i vel y , he as ks t hatthe s ent ence s be vac at ed and pa r ol e r ei ns t at ed. I d. B efor e or der i ng s ervi ce upon the r es pondent , the M agi s t r at e J udge r ecomm ended d ism iss a l su a sp o n te f

o r f a ilu re to e x h a u st a v a ilab le s tate c o u rt re m e d ies . T h e M a g istra te J udge not ed – as i ttur ns outi ncorr ect l y– thatB uxt on “has an appe al pendi ng i n t he S u p e rio r C o u rt o n th e 2 0 0 5 c o n v ictio n ;” a s n o ted a b o v e , B u x to n w ith d re w th a t ap p e a l in Sept ember2009. T he M agi s t r at e J udge al s o found thatB uxt on “i s appar ent l ys eeki ng lea v e to f

ile a [ P C R A ] p e tit io n n u n c p ro tu n c in th e 2 0 0 [ 8 ] c o n v ictio n .” T h e M a g istra te J udge conc l uded that , “[d] es pi t e s om e conf us i on i n t he r ecor d, w hati s cl eari s that [B u x ton ] ha s fa il ed to ex h au st th e a v ail ab le st ate c o u rtrem ed ies an d that h is pe ti ti o n h ereSum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e w hen an a ppeal pr es ent s “no s ubs t ant i al 1 ques t i on. ” 

### 3 dC ir. L .A .R . 2 4 .7 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 . Buxt on’ s r e que s t

for ac e rt i fi c at e of a

ppe a l abi l i ty

i s gr ant e d, a s the di s mi s s a lof 2 

### h is h ab eas p etitio no nth e g ro un do f n o n -ex h au stio nis d eb atab le, an dth e p etitio n , at least a s m e a s ur e d a ga i ns t

the l i mi t e d r e c or d be for e thi s Court , c an be s a i d t o s t at e ac l a i m of the denia l of a consti tuti on alri gh t. See Sla ck v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 47 3, 48 4 (20 00 ). 4 is p re m a tu re .” T he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed B uxt on’ s obj ect i ons , adopt ed the R epor tand R ecomm endat i on, and di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadded thatB uxt on had
a lso f a iled to e x h a u st a v a ilab le r e m e d ies re g a rd in g th e p a ro le d e c isio n . B u x to n tim e ly f iled th is a p p e a l, an d h e h a s s u b m itt e d a re q u e st f o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty 

### . T h is C o urt d i r e c t e dth e p art i e s t o s h o wc au s e a s t o why th e m a tter s h o u ld n o t b e su m m a rily
re m a n d e d . B u x to n h a s f iled a re sp o n se to th e sh o w c a u se o rd e r. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth 1 h a s n o t 

### f ileda resp o n se orent er ed an 

### ap p earan ce inth is C o urt. II . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . O urr evi ew 2 i s pl enaryof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s exhaus t i on anal y s i s . See H ol l ow ayv. H orn, 355 F. 3d 7 0 7 , 7 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A habea s pet i t i on under§ 2254 cannotbe gr ant ed unl es s the pet i t i oner“has
e x h a u s te d th e re m e d ie s a v a ila b le in th e c o u rt s o f th e S ta te .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )( 1 )( A ). T o sa tisf yth e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t, “s tate p riso n e rs m u st g iv e th e sta te c o u rts o n e f u ll oppor tuni t yt o r es ol ve anycons t i tut i onal i s s ues byi nvoki ng one compl et e r ound of theA Penns y l vani a i nm at e ca n chal l enge a r evoca t i on deci s i on byappea l i ng t o t he 3 C om m onw eal t h C our t . C om m onw eal t h v. Fel l s , 513 Pa. 18, 20 ( 1986) ; B or s el l o v. C o llera n , 8 3 3 A .2 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 5 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 20 0 3 ). A re v iew o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt’s p u b liclya v a ilab le d o c k e t re v e a ls n o e v id e n c e th a t B u x to n f iled a n a p p e a l. 5 St at e’ s es t abl i s hed appe l l at e r evi ew pr oces s . ” O ’ Sul l i van v. B oer ckel , 526 U . S. 838, 845 ( 1999) . “The bur den i s on t he habe as pet i t i onert o pr ove exha us t i on. ” D eFoyv. M cC ul l ough, 393 F. 3d 439, 442 ( 3d C i r . 2005) B uxt on’ s cl ai m s at t acki ng hi s convi ct i ons ar e pl ai nl yunexhaus t ed bec aus e he
neveri nvoked a c om pl et e r ound of the s t at e appe l l at e r evi ew pr oces s , ei t heron di r ect
a p p e a l o r P C R A re v iew . S e e O ’S u lli v a n , 5 2 6 U .S . at 8 4 5 . In a d d iti o n , h is c h a llen g e to t he par ol e r evoca t i on i s unexhaus t ed bec aus e he doe s notcl ai m t o have a ppeal ed that deci s i on. T hus , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatB uxt on fai l ed t o exhaus tr emedi es

3 th a t w e re a v a ilab le to h im in sta te c o u rt b e f o re se e k in g h a b e a s re v iew in f e d e ra l co u rt. H ow ever , i tdoes notnece s s ar i l yfol l ow , as the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, that B u x to n ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n m u st b e d ism iss e d a s “ p re m a tu re ” – i.e., th a t th e re a re still
re m e d ies a v a ilab le f

o r B u x to n to e x h a u st in sta te c o u rt. T h e M a g istra te J u d g e se e m e d to concl ude thatB uxt on has avai l abl e r emedi es fortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , the M agi s t r at e J udge not ed a pe ndi ng PC R A appea l on t he 2005 convi ct i on. H ow ever , the docke ts how s that B uxt on w i t hdr ew t hatappea l i n Sept ember2009. Second, the M agi s t r at e J udge not ed t hatB uxt on w as s eeki ng t o fi l e a PC R A pet i t i on nunc pr o tunc t o att ack the 2008 convi ct i on. B uxt on, how ever , has neverfi l ed s uch a pe t i t i on. H e di d s ubm i tvar i ous6

l et t er s t o t he tr i al cour t , copi es of w hi ch he a t t ache d t o t he habe as pet i t i on, butB uxt on d o e s n o t p re se n tlyh a v e a P C R A p e tit io n o f a n yso rt p e n d in g in sta te c o u rt. T hi s r ecor d does nots uppor ta di s m i s s al of B uxt on’ s habea s pet i t i on as “pr ematur e. ” B uxt on has no open pr ocee di ngs i n s t at e court , and ther e i s , m or eover , no appar entr eas on t o bel i eve thatt her e ar e r emedi es l eftforhi m t o pur s ue. R ather , i n l i ght
o f h is f a ilu re to e x h a u st w h e n h e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto d o so , an d g iv e n th e a g e o f h is convi ct i ons , t her e ar e s t r ong r eas ons t o bel i eve thatB uxt on’ s habea s pet i t i on i s now b a rre d f ro m re v iew o n th e m e rits in f e d e ra l co u rt. T h is m a yb e so e ith e r b e c a u se h is cl ai m s ar e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, orbeca us e B uxt on fi l ed hi s pet i t i on aft erexpi r at i on of t he A E D P A st atute of l i m i t at i on s. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not r ai se or address these i ssues. W i t h r egar d t o pr ocedur al defa ul t , “i f the pet i t i onerfai l ed t o exhaus ts t at e r emedi es a n d th e c o u rt to w h ich th e p e tit io n e r w o u ld b e re q u ire d to p re se n t h is c laim s in o rd e r to
m ee t th e e x h au sti o n req u ir em en t w o u ld n o w fin d the c lai m s p roc ed u rall yb arred [,]. . . there i s a pr ocedur al defa ul tforpurpos es of fe der al habea s [r evi ew . ] ” C ol eman v. T hom ps on, 5 0 1 U .S . 7 2 2 , 7 3 5 n .1 (1 9 9 1 ). B u x to n w o u ld b e re q u ire d u n d e r sta te la w to e x h a u st h is claim s ch all en g ing the c o n v ict ion s thro u g h a P C R A p eti ti o n . A n ysu ch p eti ti o n , h o w ev er, w oul d be t i m e barr ed. See, e. g. , B r ons ht ei n v. H orn, 404 F. 3d 700, 728 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “A l t hough B r ons ht ei n has neverpr oper l yexhaus t ed the cl ai m s ati s s ue, he i s now ‘c le a rl yf o re c lo s e d ’ f

ro m d o in g s o b yth e P C R A tim e lim it, s ee 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 9545( b) , and thes e cl ai m s ar e ther efor e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. ”) . Fur t her , B uxt on’ s 30-

### W e not e that the Di s tri c t

Court s umm ari ly

di s mi s s e d Buxt on’ s habe a s pe t i t i on 4 

### de s pi t e the Ma gi s tr at e Judge havi ng not e d “ s om e conf us i on i n t he r ecor d. 

### ” Und er Ru le4 o f th e Ru les G o v ern in g § 2 2 5 4 C ases, a summ ary d ismissal is ap p ro p riate o n ly if it “pl a i nly a ppe ar s fr om

the pe t i t i on and any

att a c he d e xhibi t s that

the pe t i t i one r

i s not enti tl ed to re li ef[.]” Given the no te d “conf usion in the re cord,”a s umm ar y dismis sa l was in ap p ro p riate. O nrem an d , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d or ders ervi ce of the pet i t i on and di r ectt he C om m onw eal t h t o fi l e a r es pons e, w hi ch s houl d hel p t o cl earup anyl i nger i ng confus i on r egar di ng t he r ecor d. 7 dayper i od t o appea l t o t he C om m onw eal t h C our tfr om the par ol e r evoca t i on deci s i on has
e x p i r e d , s e e M c Ca s k i l l v . P a . Bd . o f P r o b . & P a r o l e , 6 3 1 A. 2 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 5 ( P a . Co mm w. C t . 1993) , and ther e does notappea rt o be anyavai l abl e means thr ough w hi ch he c an exhaus thi s chal l enge t o t hatdeci s i on.

“ F e d e ra l co u rts m a yn o t co n sid e r th e m e rits o f a p ro c e d u ra llyd e f

a u lted c laim
un l ess the ap pli cant es t abli shes ‘ cause’ t o ex cuse t he d efau l tand actual ‘ prej ud i ce’ as a r es ul tof the al l eged vi ol at i on of the fe der al l aw orunl es s the appl i cantdemonstr at es t hat fai l ur e t o cons i dert he cl ai m w i l l r es ul ti n a funda m ent al ‘ m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ’ ” C arpent erv. V aughn, 296 F. 3d 138, 146 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng C ol eman, 501 U . S. at 750) . A s not ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcons i derthe ques t i on of pr ocedur al defa ul t , and t hus w e w i l l r emand fori tt o do s o i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , aft eraff or di ng B uxt on an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond t o t he i s s ue. 4 T h e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld a lso c o n sid e r o n re m a n d w h e th e r B u x to n ’s p e tit io n is barr ed byt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . “A E D PA pr ovi des a one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f o r f ili n g a § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n o n c e a d e f e n d a n t h a s c o m p lete d th e d ire c t ap p e a l p ro c e ss in8

s ta te c o u rt .” H e le v a v . B ro o k s , 5 8 1 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 -9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c itin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ) . A s t at e courtconvi ct i on becomes fi nal atthe conc l us i on of di r ectr evi ew or atexpi r at i on of the t i m e fors eeki ng s uch r evi ew . 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . O n t he lim ited re c o rd b e f

o re u s, it w o u ld a p p e a r th a t B u x to n ’s c o n v ictio n s, a n d th e p a ro le
r evoca t i on deci s i on, al l beca m e fi nal m or e than a y earpr i ort o t he fi l i ng of hi s habea s p e t i t i o n i n De c e mb e r2 0 0 9 . Th e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n th a tBu x t o n t i me l yf i l e d a P CRA p e t i t i o n s o a s t o wa r r a n ts t a tu t o r yt o l l i n g o f th e l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 2244( d) ( 2) ; T ay l orv. H or n, 504 F. 3d 416, 426 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T hatw oul d l eave the ques t i on of w hetherB uxt on can e s t abl i s h a bas i s for“equi t abl e t ol l i ng” of the l i m i t at i ons per i od. See M i l l erv. N . J . D ep’ t . of C orr . , 145 F. 3d 616, 617- 18 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d addr es s t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s ue on r emand, aft eraff or di ng B uxt on an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond. See D ayv. M cD onough, 547 U . S. 198, 209- 10 (20 0 6 ); U n it ed S tat es v . B en d o lph , 4 0 9 F . 3 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (en b an c). 

### II I. For the s e r e a s ons , we wi l lva c at e the or de r di s mi s s i ng Buxt on’ s habe a s pe t i t i on fo r fai lureto exhaust avail ablest at e c ourt re m edie s, and w e wil l remand f or the Dis tric t Court t o c onduc t

furthe r pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt

wi th thi s opi ni on.