2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-16-2010

In Re: Hubert Jackson

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4553

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Hubert Jackson " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1884.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1884
1

HLD-076 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 09-4553 

________________

IN RE: HUBERT JACKSON, 

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa.. Civ. No. 09-cv-00087)

_____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 29, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 Filed: February 16, 2010 

________________

 OPINION

_______________

PER CURIAM.

Hubert Jackson, a Pennsylvania inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus directing

the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to “inquir[e] into

the legality of the detention of petitioner on [the] basis that ground one of the ... habeas

corpus petition [docketed at W.D. Pa.. Civ. No. 09-cv-00087] raises a claim that the State

Court judgment of sentence is Constitutionally infirm[.]” Petition at 1. We will deny the
2

mandamus petition.

In 1989, Jackson entered a plea of nolo contendere in Allegheny County to

charges of rape, burglary, aggravated assault and terroristic threats, and was sentenced to

20 to 40 years in prison. (Case No. 1988-10278). In 1999, Jackson filed a habeas

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court denied the petition as time barred. 

(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 99-cv-1793). Jackson filed another habeas petition in 2005, which the

District Court transferred to this Court to be treated as an application under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244 for leave to file a second or successive petition. This Court denied the

application. (C.A. No. 05-2126.)

In 2009, Jackson filed the yet another habeas petition. (W.D. Pa.. Civ. No.

09-cv-00087.) “Claim (1)” asserted “false imprisonment due to fraud by officers of the

court rendering judgment of sentence in violation of due process void.” The District

Court dismissed the petition as time barred. This Court denied a certificate of

appealability, and denied Jackson’s petition for rehearing en banc. (C.A. No. 09-1926.) 

Jackson then filed this mandamus proceeding.

A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in extraordinary

circumstances only. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). “Before a

writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate means exist

to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and

indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v.
 Although Jackson raises essentially the same argument in the mandamus petition at 1

C.A. No. 09-4554, his challenge in that proceeding concerns a different state court

conviction and sentence. Accordingly, we address his mandamus requests separately. 

Perry, – U.S. –, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 533, at *11 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2010) (per curiam) (quotation

marks and punctuation omitted). 

Because the 2009 habeas petition has been dismissed, and that matter is

closed, Jackson has no right to compel a ruling on the merits of the petition. The proper

means for Jackson to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence in

federal court is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Jackson has had a prior ruling on the

merits of a § 2254 petition, he must obtain this Court’s permission to file a second or

successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Mandamus, however, is not a means for

evading compliance with the gatekeeping requirements that govern second or successive

petitions. Cf. United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(prisoner may not use writ of coram nobis to evade gatekeeping requirements); Massey v.

United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (prisoner cannot seek relief through writ

of audita querela on the basis of an inability to satisfy the gatekeeping requirements).

For these reasons, we will deny the petition. Jackson’s motion to

consolidate this proceeding with the mandamus petition docketed at C.A. No. 09-4554 is

denied. 

1