2008 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 2-13-2008 

# L uck ett v . F olino 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 . 07-1428

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Lucke tt v . F o l ino " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1606. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1606H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 1428 EDD I E L. LUC KETT,

A ppel l ant v. LOU I S F OLI NO , SUPERI NTEN DEN T OF SCI - GR EENE; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A;

DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY OF LA CK AW AN NA CO UN TY

O n A p p e a l o f

a D e c isio n o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( N o. 1: 05- cv- 01592)

D i s t r i ctJ udge: Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

February11, 2008 B e f o re : C H A G A R E S a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges ,

a n d P OL L AK, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: February13, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge I n thi s appea l , w e mustdeci de w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng app el l ant Ed die Lu ckett ’s ha bea s corpus peti t i on becau se of L uck et t ’s fai l ure t o ex hau st hi s s t at e r emedi es . L uckettadmi t s t hathi s s t at e r emedi es ar e notexhaus t ed, butar gues thatexhaus t i on s houl d be exc us ed bec aus e of the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a’ s del ay in ru lin g o n h is a p p lica tio n f o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w e r el at e onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryforour d e c isio n . In th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s f

o r L a c k a w a n n a C o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia, L u c k e tt w as c o n v ict ed o f f

ir st de g ree m u rde r, rob b ery , b u rglary , co n sp ir ac yto co m m itm u rde r, c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it ro b b e ry , co n sp ira c yto c o m m it b u rg lar y , an d c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it c a u s in g o r r is k in g c a ta s tr o p h e . H e w a s s e n te n c e d in J a n u a ry 1 9 9 9 to , in tera lia , a t erm of life im p riso n m e n t. H avi ng exhaus t ed hi s di r ectappea l s , L uckettpet i t i oned the C our tof C om m on Pl eas forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n D ece m ber2001. T he courtappoi nt ed couns el s oon ther eaf t erand hel d a hea r i ng on t he pet i t i on i n A ugus t2003. I n February2005, for r eas ons notappar entfr om t he r ecor d, the courtappoi nt ed new couns el . I n A ugus t2005, thi s new couns el m oved forl eave t o amend t he pet i t i on, and the courtgr ant ed that m ot i on. I n O ct ober2005, t he courthel d a hea r i ng on t he amended pet i t i on. I n D ece m ber3

2 0 0 5 , th e ju d g e p re s id in g o v e r L u c k e tt’ s p e titio n re tir e d , a n d th e c a s e w a s re a s s ig n e d . M eanw hi l e, i n A ugus t2005, w hi l e hi s s t at e pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w as s t i l l pendi ng, L uckettfi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on fora w r i tof ha bea s corpus u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 in the D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e M idd le D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ap p o inted co u n sel, an d L u ck ettfil ed a se co n d am en d ed p eti ti o n in F eb rua ry2 0 0 6 . In J une 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , not i ng thatL uckett ’ s s t at e r emedi es w er e notexhaus t ed, s t ay ed the ha bea s a c tio n p e n d in g a re so lu tio n o f L u c k e tt’s sta te p e tit io n f o r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef. I n J anuary2007, s eei ng no i ndi cat i on thatthe s t at e pet i t i on w oul d be res olved i n sho rtorder, t he D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed L uck et t ’s ha bea s pet i t i on w i t hout pr ej udi ce t o r e- fi l e once hi s s t at e r emedi es w er e exha us t ed. O n L uckett ’ s m ot i on, t hi s cour tgr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yon t he i s s ue of w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have w ai ved the exha us t i on r equi r ementi n l i ghtof the sta te c o u rt’s d e lay i n a c tin g o n L u c k e tt’s p e tit io n . A f ter th e f ili n g o f th is a p p e a l, i n A p ril 2 0 0 7 , th e C o u rt o f

C o m m o n P le a s d e n ie d L u c k e tt’ s p e titio n f o r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. L uckettappea l ed t o t he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our t , and thatappea l , acc or di ng t o t he Super i orC our t ’ s docket , w as s ubm i t t ed t o a pane l of the courtw i t houtor al ar gum enton J anuary22, 2008. II. I ti s nor m al l yi m perm i s s i bl e fora fe der al cour tt o ent ert ai n a pet i t i on fora w r i tof ha bea s corpus b e f

o re th e p e titio n e r’ s s ta te re m e d ie s h a v e b e e n e x h a u s te d . See 2 8 U. S . C.4

§ 2 2 5 4 (b) & (c). T h e e x h au sti o n req u ir em en t, h o w ev er, i s n o t j u ri sd ict ion al; rathe r, p rin c ip les o f

c o m ityd icta te th a t th e sta te s h o u ld b e a f f o rd e d th e f

irst o p p o rtu n ityto c o n s id e r a p e titio n e r’ s a rg u m e n ts f o r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. Lee v. Str i ckland , 357 F. 3d 338, 341 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e have w ai ved the exha us t i on r equi r ementw hen undue de l ay re n d e rs a s ta te re m e d ye f f e c tiv e ly u n a v a ila b le . Id . a t 3 4 4 ; s ee al s o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 (b)(1 )(B ). W e ac know l edge thatL ucketthas been s ubj ect ed t o an extr aor di nary , and s eemi ngl yunnece s s ary , del ayi n cons i der i ng hi s s t at e appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. T he C om m onw eal t h ar gues thatm uch of thi s del ayi s of Lucket t ’ s ow n m aki ng, and, i ndeed, t hatm aybe true. T he r ecor d befor e us does noti l l um i nat e al l of the r eas ons fo r th e d elay , b u t th e f

ac t r em ains that m o re tha n fiv e y ea rs pa ssed b etw ee n L u ck ett ’s in iti a l p e tit io n in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 a n d th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s’ d e c isio n in A p ril 2007. W e have w ai ved the exha us t i on r equi r ementforpet i t i oner s fac i ng del ay s of s u b s ta n tia lly sh o rt e r l e n g th . See, e. g. , B u rke t tv . Cu n n i n g h a m, 826 F. 2d 1208, 1210- 11 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 7 ) (f

iv e y e a r d e lay); W

oj t cz ak v. Ful com er , 800 F. 2d 353, 356 ( 3d C i r . 1986) (3 3 -m o n th d e lay); U

ni t ed Stat es ex r el . Senk v . B r i er l ey, 471 F. 2d 657, 660 ( 3d C i r . 1973) (t h re e -a n d -a -h a lf

y e a r d e la y ). In d e c id in g w h e th e r to w a iv e th e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t, ho w e v e r, w e g e n e ra lly ta k e in to a c c o u n t r e c e n t p ro g re s s in th e s ta te c o u rt . C r is t i n v. B r ennan , 281 F. 3d 404, 411 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W h e n a p re v io u slysta lled sta te a c tio n b e g in s m o v in g a g a in , w e g e n e ra lly5

h o ld th a t a s ta te re m e d yis , o n c e a g a in , a v a ila b le , a n d th a t th e p e titio n e r s h o u ld e x h a u s t it. Id . H er e, the s t at e pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef ha s now been rul ed upon, an appe al has bee n fil ed, and t hat appeal has been sub m i t t ed to a pan el of the S up eri or C ou rt . T hu s, w e h a v e e v e ry re a s o n to e x p e c t a n in te rm e d ia te a p p e lla te d e c is io n w ith in a f e w m o n th s . B ecause L uck et t ’s st at e-courtcase i s now neari ng i t s fi nal s t ages, and becau se the case n o w a p p e a rs to b e m o v in g sm o o th lya n d q u ick ly , w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t a s tate re m e d yis eff ect i vel yunavai l abl e. T her efor e, though w e expr es s conce r n aboutthe del ay s i n t he earl yst ages of

L uck et t ’s st at e peti t i on , w e are s at i sfi ed that , i n li gh tof recent pr og res s, the exha us t i on r equi r ements houl d notbe exc us ed. * * * * * Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng L uck et t ’s ha bea s p eti ti o n w ith o u t prejud ice to re -fil e o n ce h is st ate rem ed ies are exhaus t ed.