2005 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

4-21-2005 

# B e nchoff v . C olle r an
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al
D ocke t N o . 03-3635

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_2005

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 2005 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

" Be nchoff v

. C o lle r an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1271. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1271P 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. 03- 3635

RO BE RT BE N CH O FF,
Appel l ant

v.
RA YM OND C OL L E RA N

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 02- cv- 01885) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

A r gued February8, 2005 B e f o re : B A R R Y , F U E N T E S , a n d B E C K E R , C i rcui tJud ges. ( Fi l ed A pr i l 21, 2005)
GE RALD J. PAPPERT MI CHAEL

L . HARVEY( argued) CALVI N R. KOONS J O HNG

. K

N O O R , III Offic e of theAttorney

General, Litigation Section 15 Fl., Strawberry

Square th Har risburg , PA 17120 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee
R

. D AM IEN S C H O RR

( ar gued) 1015 I r w i n D r i ve2 Pi t t s bur g, PA 15236 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge

. R o b ert B en ch o ff ap p ea ls fro m an o rde r o f th e D istri ct C o u rt deny i n g h i s p e t i t i o n f

o ra wr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s c l a i mi n g t h a the w as deni ed due pr oces s bythe P enns y l vani a B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e ( t he “Par ol e B oar d”) w hen i tfai l ed t o gi ve a meani ngful s t at ement of r eas ons for deni al of hi s par ol e. T he det erm i nat i ve ques t i on on appea l , how ever , i s w hethera pet i t i on chal l engi ng t he a d m in istra tio n o f

a p e tit io n e r’s se n ten c e , su c h a s B e n c h o f f ’s p a ro le cl ai m , s houl d be consi der ed a “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” pe t i t i on over w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 2244, i f the pet i t i onerhad fi l ed a pr i or p eti ti o n t hat c h a lle n g e d th e u n d e rl y in g c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e
. E xampl es of cha l l enges t o t he admi ni s t r at i on of a s ent ence ar e thos e cl ai m s t hatr ai s e i s s ues r el at i ng t o co n d it i ons of c o n f i n e me n t , p a r o l e p r o c e d u r e s , o rc a l c u l a t i o n o f g o o d

- t i me cr edi t s
. I n t hi s cas e, B enchof f fi l ed hi s fi r s t fede r al habea s corpus pet i t i on, w hi ch made cl ai m s r el at ed t o t he conduc tof hi s t r i al and hi s convi ct i on, onl y s ever al m ont hs befor e fi l i ng t he ins t ant pet i t i o n
. W e h o l d t h a tb e c a u s e Be n c h o f f ’ s p a r o l e c l a i m ha d ri pen ed b yt hat t i m e, and he had no val i d ex cuse fo r fai l i ng t o rai se t he cl aim in hi s fi r s tpet i t i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on and hen ce s houl d have di s m i s s ed thi s pet i t i on a s “ se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e ” a s re q u ire d b y§ 2 2 4 4 . In m a k in g th is det erm i nat i on, w e w i l l cons ul tthe abus e of the w r i tj ur i s prudence , w hi ch pr edat ed the pas s age of § 2244, concl udi ng thatt he doctr i ne r et ai ns vi t al i t yas a t o o l fori nt erpr et i ng the t erm “s econd or s u c c e s s iv e ” u n d e r § 2 2 4 4

. W e a lso re

jec t B e n c h o f

f ’s c laim th a t h e w a s n o t re q u ire d to r ai s e hi s par ol e cl ai m i n hi s fi r s t habea s pet i t i on beca us e he had not y e t ex h a u ste d th e c laim in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts. W e w ill1 Pr i ort o fi l i ng t hi s habea s pet i t i on, B en ch o ff f i r s ts ought r el i ef f r om the Penns y l vani a s t at e court s
. O n A p ri l 1, 2002, he fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of m an d am u s in the C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt of P enn sy l van i a cl ai m i ng t hat the P arol e B oard ha d d enied him p aro le fo r un co n sti tuti o n al reaso n s. T h e C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt deni ed the w ri t three da y s l at er
. B enchof f then fi l ed a s econd m a n d a m u s p e tit i on i n C om m on w eal th C ou rta rg u in g th a t th e P a ro le B oar d had notadequa t el yr evea l ed i t s r at i onal e i n deny i ng par ol e. T he C om m o n w ea l t h C our tdeni ed the w r i t , and i t s deci s i on w as aff i r m ed byt he P en ns y l vani a Supr eme C our ton J ul y11, 2002. B enchof f then fil ed a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t on A pr i l 28, 2002, w hi ch w as deni ed M ay15, 2002. Fi nal l y , B enchof f f il ed y etanotherm andamus pet i t i on i n t he C om m onw eal t h C our t on M ay 28, 2002, w hi ch w as deni ed D ece m ber3, 2002. 3 th e re f o re d ism iss th e a p p e a l a n d re m a n d to th e D istric t C o u rt w ith in s tru c tio n s to d is m is s th e p e titio n
.

I

. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY
Benc ho ff

w a s c on vi c t e d o f b ur gl a r y , c r i mi na l tr e s pa s s, s i m pl e as s aul t , and t w o count s of i nt er fer ence w i t h t he cus t odyof c h i l d r e n i n t h e C o u r to f C o m m o n P l e a s o f

F r a n k l i n C o u n t y, Penns y l vani a, on A ugus t15, 1995

. H e fi r s tbeca m e el i gi bl e for p a ro le f ro m h is s e n te n c e o n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 0

. O n J une 27, 2002, B enchof f fi l ed a fede r al habea s pet i t i on r ai s i ng exhaus t ed and une xhaus t ed cl ai m s r el at i ng to the conduc t of hi s cr i m i nal t r i al

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the pet i t i on and no appea l w as t aken. B efor e any deci s i on w as r ender ed on hi s habea s pet i t i on, B enchof

f fi l ed the pr es entfede r al hab e a s p e t i t i on pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254. T he gr avamen of B enchof f’ s curr entpet i t i on 1 i s t hatt he Par ol e B oar d vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h an ade quat e s t at ementof re as ons fordeny i ng h im p a ro le

. B enchof f w as fi r s tr evi ew ed forpar ol e i n 2000. T he not i ce of deni al of par ol e s t at ed onl yt hatt he B oar d “has det erm i ned that t he fa i r admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce c annotbe ac hi eved thr ough y our re lea se o n p a ro le.” In 2 0 0 1 a n d 2 0 0 2 , B e n c h o f f w a s a g a in2 T he r evi s ed 2002 not i ce of deni al of par ol e s t at ed:
Y o u rb e s ti n t e r e s t s d o n o tj u s t i f yo rr e q u i r e y o u b e i ng par ol ed/ r epar ol ed; and, t he intere sts of t he C o m m o n w ea lth w il l be in jured if y o u w ere par ol ed/r epar ol ed. T her efor e, y ou ar e r efu s ed par ol e/r epar ol e atthi s t i m e. T he reasons forthe B oar d’ s deci s i on i ncl ude the fol l ow i ng:
Y our ver s i on of the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of t he off ens e( s ) comm i t t ed.
T he not es of t es t i m onyo f the s ent enci ng hear i ng.
Y ouri nte r vi ew w i t h the hea r i ng exami ner an d /or b o ard m em b er. A

- 51. 4 r evi ew ed and a gain d eni ed forpar ol e. E ach t i m e, t he not i ce of deni al us ed the s am e “f ai radmi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce” l anguage
. B e n c h o f f th e n f iled th is fe d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n
. A p p ro x im a tely t w o w eeks aft er B enchof f fi l ed t hi s pet i t i on, t he Par ol e B o ard m odi fi ed i t s 2002 deci s i on and pr ovi ded B enchof f w i t h addi t i onal i nform at i on r egar di ng t he r eas ons fordeni al of par ol e. 2 S ince fil ing this pe ti ti o n , B en ch o ff h as f il ed tw o m o re fede r al habea s pet i t i ons ( on M ay7, 2003 and J ul y25, 2003)

. E ach of thes e pet i t i ons cl ai m s t hat i t w as a vi ol at i on of the ex p o st fa c to cl ause of t he U nit ed Stat es C on st i tuti on for t he Parol e B oard t o u se t he 1996 amendm entt o Penns y l vani a’ s par ol e proc edur es in m aki ng B enchof

f’ s par ol e deci s i on beca us e t he 1996 am endment w a s n o t in e f

f e c t a t th e tim e o f

B e n c h o f f ’s 1 9 9 5 c o n v ic tio n
. T he M agi s t r at e J udge r ecommen d e dth a tth e p r e s e n tpet i t i on and the M ay7, 2003 pet i t i on be gr ant ed and sugge s t ed thatt he Par ol e B oar d s houl d be r equi r ed t o pr ovi de B enchof f w ith a sta tem e n t o f

re a so n s f

o r d e n ial o f

p a ro le. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt, h o w e v e r, d e c lin ed to ad o p t t h e M ag ist rate Ju d g e’s r ecomm endat i ons , concl udi ng t hatB enchof f di d nothave a due pr oces s r i ghtt o a s t at ement of r eas ons
. T he D i s t r i ct C our t hel d t hat3 W e n o te th a t o u r d e c isio n to d a yd o e s n o t ap p lyto B ench off ’s ex pos tf

acto chal l enge t o t he Par ol e B oar d’ s O ct ober 2002 deci s i on t o denyhi m par ol e. T he Par ol e B oar d’ s r evi s ed sta tem e n t o f

re a so n s, iss u e d in O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 , w a s s u b sta n tiv e ly differ ent from t he reasons i tgav e B ench off on earl i er occasi on s, and w as i s s ued af

t erB enchof

f had f i l ed hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on. 5 a pet i t i onerhas no pr ocedur al r i ghtt o a s t at ementof r eas on s for deni al of par ol e bec aus e nei t herfede r al norPenns y l vani a st at e l aw cre ates a su b stan ti v e li b ertyinterest i n p aro le. T h e D istri ct C o u rt did not address t he M ay7, 20 03 peti t i on ’s ex pos tfact o cl ai m s. B enchof f has appea l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s habea s p e t i t i o n o n l ya s t o t h e d u e p r o c e s s p a r o l e c l a i m. 3
I I

. DI S CU S S I ON
A.
A s not ed above, not w i t hs t andi ng the fa ctt hatB enchof f had alread yfil ed a p ri o r pe ti ti o n fo r ha b ea s co rpu s, the D istri ct C o u rt d e c id e d th is c a se o n th e m e rits w ith o u t ad d re ss in g th e th re sh o ld ques t i on w hetherB enchof f’ s habea s p et i t i on s houl d have be en di s m i s s ed as a “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” pe t it ion p ur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 . N e ith e r p a rty h a s ra ise d th e su c c e ss iv e n e ss iss u e in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt o r o n a p p e a l. N ev erthe le s s , th is C o u rt m u s t determ ine w h ethe r B en ch o ff’s habea s pet i t i on w as “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” w i t hi n the meani ng of 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b ), b e c a u se § 2 2 4 4 im p lica tes b o th o u r a p p e llate ju ri s d ic tio n a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri sd ic tio n
. See R obi ns on v. Johns on , 31 3 F

. 3d 12 8, 13 8 (3 d C i r. 20 02 ) ( “M ost court s t hathave c ons i der ed the i s s ue t r eat t he s ucce s s i venes s i s s ue as compar abl e t o t he defens e t hat t he cour t l acks j ur i s di ct i on of the s ubj ectm att er
. ” ); see al so St eel C o. v. C i t iz ens f

ora B et t er En v i r onm ent , 5 2 3 U .S . 8 3 , 9 5 (1 9 9 8 ) (“ [ E ]v e ryf e d e ra l ap p e llate cour t h a s a s p e c i a l o b l i g a t i o n t o s a t i s f y i t s e l f n o t o n l y o f i t s ow n j ur i s di ct ion, butal s o t hatof the l ow ercourt s i n a ca s e under r evi ew , even t hough the part i es ar e pr epar ed t o conce de i t

. ”) ( quot i ng Mitc h e l l v . M

a u r e r, 293 U

. S. 237, 244 ( 1934) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )). T h e re f o re , itis in c u m b e n t u p o n u s to4W e h a v e s o me d o u b t th a t Be n c h o f f ’ s p a r o l e c l a i m w as pr oper ly fil ed as a habe as corpus pet i t i on pur s uantt o § 2254. B enchof f does not appea r t o be cha l l engi ng t he fa ctof conf i nement o r to b e se e k in g sp e e d ier re lea se , b u t ra th e r, to b e c h a llen g in g o n ly t he pr o ce d ur e us ed t o comm uni cat e the Par ol e B oar d’ s deci s i on d en y ing h im p aro le. In a v ery rec en t dec isi o n , the S u p rem e C o u rt he l d th a tc h a l l e n g e s t o p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t yp r o c e e d i n g s whi c h s eek n e w p a ro le p ro c e d u re s b u t w h ich w o u ld n o t n e c e ss a rilyre su lt i n s peedi err el eas e do not“l i e[] atthe ‘ cor e of ha beas corpu s” and in s te a d a re c o g n iz a b le u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 3

. W i lki ns on v. D ot s on , 1 2 5 S .C t. 12 4 2 , 1 2 4 8 (2 0 0 5 ); see al so G eorg ev ic h v. Str au ss , 772 F. 2d 10 7 8 , 1087 ( 3d C i r
. 1985) ( hol di ng that pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m coul d be ra i s ed under § 1983 i f t he cl ai m r el at ed o n ly to th e m a n n e r i n w h ich p a ro le d e c isio n s w e re m a d e a n d d id n o t se e k a c tu a l re lea se o n p a ro le) ; C ars on v. Johns on , 112 F. 3d 8 1 8 , 8 2 0 -2 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ If a f a v o ra b le d e te rm in a tio n
. . . w oul d notaut om at ical l yent i t l e [the pr i s oner ] t o acc el er at ed release , the p rop er v eh icl e is a § 1 9 8 3 su it

. ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted); A nya nw utaku v. Moo re , 151 F. 3d 1053, 1055- 56 ( D

. C

. C i r
. 1998) ( “[C]ha l l enges t o s t at e par ol e pr ocedur es w hos e s ucce s s w oul d not nec es s ar i l yr es ul ti n i m m edi at e ors peedi err el eas e nee d notbe b rou g h t i n h ab ea s co rpu s .
. . . ”). N ev erthe less, n eith er W i lki ns on n o r G eor

g ev ic h hel d t hat § 1983 i s the exc l us i ve m eans for br i ngi ng s uch claim s, al t hough l anguage in b o th opi ni ons m ays ugges ts uch a r es ul t

. O urs i s t er ci r cui t s have s t ruggl ed w i t h t hi s ques t i on, and no uni form ans w er h a s e m e rg e d to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r c laim s c h a llen g in g o n ly p aro le p roc ed u res m ay b e bro u g h t in hab ea s p eti tio n s
. C om pa re Mo ra n v . So n da lle , 2 1 8 F

. 3 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 2 ( 7 t h Ci r
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( “[C]ha l l enges t o pr ocedur es empl oy ed t o cons i derapp l i c a t i o ns for par ol e ar e ci vi l act i ons under§ 1983 and notcol lat era l a t t acks under§ 2241 and § 2 2 5 4 , unl es s the pr i s onercont ends that a p p lica tio n o f

h is p re f

e rre d p ro c e d u re s w o u ld h a v e le d to h is im m e d ia te re le a s e .” ), w ith D ocken v. C ha se , 393 F. 3d 1024, 1030 ( 9t h C ir

. 2 004) ( hol di ng onl ythat“§ 1983 w as an a p p ro p ria te 6 addr es s t he succ es s i venes s i s s ue su a sp o n te t o ens ur e t hatw e and the D istri ct C o u rth av e jurisdicti o n to h ea r th e m erit s o f B en ch o ff ’s pet i t i on. 4re m e d y ” f o r c h a llen g in g th e tim in g o f h is p a ro le e lig ib ili ty det erm i nat i on “w i t hout r eac hi ng t he i s s ue of w hether § 1983 w as t he exc l us i ve r emedy ”)

. A s w e ar e abl e t o di s pos e of thi s cas e on j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds , w e w i l l not r eac h t hi s cont ent i ous ques t i on. 7 Sect i on 2244, a pr ovi s i on of t he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA cto f 1996 ( A E D PA ) , es t abl i s hes t he pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s w hi ch govern “s econd o rs ucce s s i ve” h a b e a s p e titio n s
. S e e I n r e M in a rik , 166 F. 3d 591, 599- 600 ( 3d C i r. 19 99 ). A s a proced ural m at t er, § 224 4(b)( 3)( A ) es t abli shes a

“ g a tek e e p in g ” m e c h a n ism th a t re q u ire s a p ro sp e c tiv e a p p lica n t to “fi l e i n the cou rtof ap pea ls a m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e a s econd or s u c c e s s i v e h a b e a s a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. ” F elkerv. T u rp in , 518 U

. S

. 6 5 1 , 657 ( 1996)

. O nce a pet i t i onerm oves for author i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd or s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on, a thr ee- j udge p a n e l o f t h e c o u r to f

a p p e a l s m u s td e c i d e w i t h i n th i r t y d a ys w hether t her e i s a pr i m a fac i e s how i ng thatt he appl i cat i on s at i s fi es § 2 2 4 4 ’s su b stan ti v e re q u ir em en ts. 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 )(D ). Sect i on 2244( b) ( 2) pr ovi des the r el evants ubs t ant i ve s t andar d, w hi ch r equi r es the di s m i s s al of a “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” hab eas app l i cat i on un l ess: (A ) th e a p p lica n t sh o w s th a t th e c laim re lies o n a n e w ru le of c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w, ma d e r e t r o a c t i v e t o c a s e s on col l at er al r evi ew byt he Supr eme C our t , t hatw as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e; or ( B ) ( i ) t he fa ctual pr edi cat e fort he cl ai m coul d nothave been di sco v ere d pr evi ous l ythr ough t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; and (ii) th e f a c ts u n d e rly in g th e c laim , if p ro v e n a n d v iew e d in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a s a w h o le, w o u ld b e su f f icie n t to es t abl i s h bycl ear an d convi nci ng evi dence that , butfor cons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e fac t fi nder w oul d have found the appl i cantgui l t yof the under l y i ng offe ns e.
U nl es s bot h t he pr ocedur al and subs t ant i ve re qui r ement s of § 2244 ar e m et , t he D i s t r i ct C our t l acks author i t yt o cons i derthe mer i t s of8 t he pet i t i on. B.
Sect i on 2244’ s s t r i ctpr ocedur al r egi m e and s ubs t ant i ve s t andar ds onl y ap pl yi f B enchof f’ s curr entpet i t i on i s “s econd or s ucce s s i ve” w i t hi n t he meani ng of the s t atu te. Sect i on 2244, how ever , does notdefi ne w hatcons t i tut es a “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” pet i t i on. Pr i or t o t he pass age of A E D PA , w e em pl oy ed a col l ect i on o f e q u itab le p rin c ip les k n o w n a s th e “ a b u se o f th e w rit” d o c trin e to det erm i ne w hen a pe t i t i on w oul d be deem ed ab us i ve and thus b a rr e d f ro m c o n s id e ra tio n o n its m e ri ts

. U ni t ed Stat es v. R obers on , 1 9 4 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). U nderthi s doctr i ne, a pet i t i on w o u ld b e c o n side red an ab u se o f th e w ri t, in te r a lia , w her e the s ubs equentpet i t i on r ai s ed a ha beas cl ai m w h ich coul d have be en r ai s ed i n an ea r l i erpet i t i on and t her e w as no l egi t i m at e exc us e for f a ilu re to d o s o
. See M cC l es key v. Zant , 4 9 9 U

. S. 467, 493- 95 (19 9 1 ). T he pas s age of

A E D PA , how ever , has cas tdoubton w h e th e r w e sh o u ld c o n tin u e to e m p lo y“ a b u se o f th e w rit” pr i nci pl es
. I n t he w ake of A E D PA , t hi s C our t has y et t o deci de th e a b u se o f

th e w rit d o c trin e ’s o n g o in g v a lid it y i n th is c o n tex t. I ndeed, i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. R obers on , w e us ed l an guage that s ugges t s t hatA E D PA had com pl et el y s uper s eded the abus e of the w r i t do c t r i n e
. 1 9 4 F. 3 d a t4 1 1 ( “ AED PA .

. . r e p l a c e d the abus e- of- t he- w r i t d o ctr i ne art i cul at ed i n McC l es key

. ”). I n R obers on , t he def

endant di d not s ubm i t hi s s econd habea s pet i t i on t o us pr i or t o fi l i ng hi s pet i t i on w i th t he D i s t r i ct C our t , as r equi r ed b y§ 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 )(A ). A s a resu lt , w e a ff irm ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d is m i s s al of R ober s on’ s pet i t i on. W hi l e R obers on s t a t e d t hat § 22 4 4 i ns t i tut ed new “gat ekee pi ng” pr ocedur al pr ovi s i ons and m ad e the su b stan ti v e stan d ard fo r suc ce ssive p eti ti o n s m o re s t r i ngentt han undert he abus e of the w r i tdoctr i ne, i tdi d not e lab o ra te, a n d w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t R obers on evisce r at ed the abus e of the w r i tdoctr i ne t o i nt er pr et A E D P A ’ s t e r m i n o l o g y. R a th e r, w e f

in d th a t th e a b u se o f th e w rit d o c trin e re tain s v iab ili ty as a m ea ns of det erm i ni ng w hen a pe t i t i on s houl d be dee m ed

“ s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e ” u n d e r t h e s ta tu te

. W e a re su p p o rte d in th is v iew b yth e f a c t th a t, n o tw ith sta n d in g th e A E D P A ’s p a ss a g e , o u r si s te r c irc u its u n if o rm lyh a v e c o n tin u e d to in ter p re t “s e c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e ” w ith9 re f e re n c e to t h e p r e -A E D P A “ a b u s e o f th e w ri t” d o c tr in e
. See C ro u c h v . N

o rr is , 2 5 1 F .3 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 3 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ I]t is gener a l l ya c k n o wl e d g e d t h a tth e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f ‘ s e c o n d or s ucce s s i ve’ i nvol ves t he appl i cat i on of pr e- A E D PA abus e of the w ri t pri n ciples .” ); Munizv. U ni t ed Stat es , 236 F. 3d 122, 127 ( 2d C i r
. 2001) ( us i ng t he “e qui t abl e pr i nci pl es under l y i ng t he ‘ abus e of t he w r i t ’ d o ctri ne” t o det erm i ne w hethera pet i t i on i s “s econd or s ucce s s i v e” ); U

n itedS ta tes v . B a rr e tt , 1 7 8 F

. 3 d 3 4 , 4 4 (1st C ir

. 1999) ( “The cor e of A E D PA r es t r i ct i ons on s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2 2 5 5 p eti ti o n s is related to the lon g stan d ing jud ici al an d statu tory restri ct i ons
. . . know n as t he ‘ abus e of the w r i t ’ doctr i ne. ”); s ee a lso In re C a in , 1 3 7 F

. 3 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 5 (5th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ) (p er c u ri am ); R e e v e s v . L itt le , 1 2 0 F

. 3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 3 9 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ) (pe r cu ri am ). M o re o v e r, th e a b u se o f th e w rit d o c trin e ’s o n g o in g v a lid ity as a means of i nt erpr et i ng “s econd and su cce s s i ve” ha s been s t r ongl y s ugges t ed by the S upr eme C our t , w hi ch has i m pl i ed that § 224 4 i s a st atutory extensi on and cod i fi cat i on of the e q u itab le p ri n c ip le s o f

th e d o c tr in e
. See Slack v

. McD ani el , 52 9 U

. S

. 4 7 3, 486 ( 2000) ( s ugges t i ng t hat t he defi ni t i on of s econd ors ucce s s i ve w o u ld b e sa m e u n d e r A E D P A a s u n d e r p re -A E D P A law ); Felker , 518 U

. S. at664 ( fi ndi ng t hat§ 22 4 4 codi fi ed and a dded r es t r i ct i ons t hat w er e “w el l w i t hi n t he compass of t h [e] evo l uti on aryprocess” of t he ab use of t he w ri tdo ct ri ne, w hich i s a “compl ex and e vol vi ng body of equi t abl e pr i nci pl es i nform ed and contr ol l ed by hi s t or i cal us age, s t atut ory devel opm ent s , and j udi ci al deci s i ons ”) ( quot i ng McC l es key , 4 9 9 U

. S

. at 48 9 ). I nform ed byt he t eac hi ngs of the Supr eme C o u rt and our s i s t erci r cui t s , t her efor e, w e w i l l l ook t o pr i nci pl es of t he abus e of th e w ri t d o c tr in e in d e f

in in g “ s e c o n d a n d s u c c e s s iv e .”
C

. T he abus e of t he w r i t doctr i ne di ct at es t hat w e s houl d tr eat th e ter m “ se c o n d a n d su c c e ss iv e ” a s a term o f a rt, w h ich is n o t to be r ead l i t er al l y . T her efor e, “a pr i s oner ’ s appl i cat i on i s nots econd o r s u c c e s s iv e s im p ly b e c a u s e it f o llo w s a n e a rl ie r f

e d e ra l p e titio n .” In re C a in , 137 F. 3d at235. T he doctr i ne does, how ever , bar cl ai m s that coul d have be en r ai s ed i n an ea r l i erhabea s corpus p e titio n
. McC l es key , 4 9 9 U .S . at 4 9 3 -9 5 ; W is e v. Ful com er , 958 F. 2 d 30, 34 ( 3d C i r
. 1992)

. T hus , a s ubs equentpet i t i on t hat10 c h a l l e n g e s t h e a d m i n i s tr a t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e i s c l e a r l y nota “s econd o r su c c e ss iv e ” p e tit io n w it h in th e m e a n in g o f § 2 2 4 4 if

th e c laim had notar i s en orcoul d nothave been r ai s ed at t he t i m e of t he pr i or p e titio n
. S e e S in g leto n v . N o rr is , 3 1 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 3 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); Medber r

y v. C r os by , 3 5 1 F

. 3 d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 6 2 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); Hi l lv. A l as ka , 2 9 7 F

. 3 d 8 9 5 , 8 9 8 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); In re C a in , 137 F. 3d at236. T h e p rim a ry q u e stio n , the re f o re , is w h e th e r B e n c h o f f c o u ld h a v e ra ise d th is c h a llen g e to P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s p a ro le p ro c e d u re s in hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on. B enchof f w as fi r s tdeni ed par ol e on Sept ember12, 2000. H e w as agai n deni ed par ol e on S ept ember14, 2001, and a thi r d t i m e on O ctober1, 2002. E ach t i m e B enchof f w a s d e n ied p a ro le, th e P a r o le B o a rd u se d th e sa m e “ f a ir admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce” l anguage w i t hou t g ivi ng B enchof f the s t at ementof re as ons he cur r ent l y s eeks

. T her efor e, w hen B enchof f fi l ed hi s or i gi nal habea s pet i t i on on J une 27, 2002, tw o of the thr ee par ol e dec i s i ons t hatus ed the cont es t ed “f ai radmin ist rat i on of ju s tic e ” la n g u a g e h a d a lr e a d yb e e n is s u e d

. W hen court s have pe r m i t t ed a pe t i t i onert o chal l enge the admi ni s t r at i on o f h is orhers ent ence i n a s ubs equenthabea s pet i t i on, t he chal l enged c onducthas occurr ed af t er t he fi l i ng of the ear l i erpet i t i on. F orexampl e, i n C r ouch , the E ig h th C irc u it s peci fi ed thatt he pet i t i oner“coul d nothave r ai s ed h is par ol erel at ed clai m s i n h i s fi rs thab eas pet i t i o n” b ecause “[h ]i s fi rs t parol e den i al w as dat ed N ov em ber 23, 1998 , som e t en m on t hs af t er h e f il ed h is § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n
. ” 2 5 1 F

. 3 d at 72 4 (em p h asis ad d ed ); s ee als o Ja m es v. W

als h , 3 0 8 F .3 d 1 6 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c laim c h a l l e n g i n g t h e i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c r e d i tf o rt i me s erved had notar i s en w hen p eti t i onerfi l ed hi s fi r s thabea s p e tit io n ); Hill , 297 F. 3d at898 ( fi ndi ng the habe as pet i t i on w as not s ucce s s i ve bec aus e the di s t r i ct cour t had not pr evi ous l yaddr es s ed H ill ’s c h a llen g e to th e c a lcu latio n o f h is p a ro le d a te o n th e m e rits and beca us e t hos e cl ai m s coul d not have been i ncl ud ed in ea r l i er p e tit io n s c h a llen g in g h is co n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e ); C a in , 137 F. 3d at236 ( emphasi zi ng t hat t he pet i t i onercoul d nothave c hal l enged t he pr i s on di s ci pli naryboar d’ s deci s i on t o s t r i p hi m of hi s good tim e c re d its in h is e a rl ie r p e titio n s ). I n contr as t , B enchof

f had al r eady r ece i ved t w o out of thr ee i den t i cal l yph ras ed d enial s of pa rol e att h e tim e h e fi l ed h i s fi rs t habea s pet i t i on. T he t hi r d par ol e deci s i on, w hi ch i ni t i al l yoffe r ed11 the s am e “ fa irad m inistrati o n o f ju sti ce ” ra ti o n ale, w as th er e f o re n o ta n e c e s s a r y f

a c tu a l p r e d i c a t e t o Be n c h o f f ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. I ndeed, even one of the par ol e deni al s w oul d have be en s uffi ci ent f o r B e n c h o f

f to f o rm u late h is c o m p lain t. A s a re su lt, w e c a n f a irly sa yth a t B e n c h o f

f “ k n e w o f

a ll th e f

a c ts n e c e ss a ryto ra ise h is [par ol e] cl ai m befor e he f i l ed hi s i ni t i al fede r al pet i t i on. ” C r one v. C o c kre ll , 324 F. 3d 833, 837 ( 5th C i r
. 2003)

. T he r emai ni ng q u e stio n is w h e th e r B e n c h o f f h a s a leg iti m a te e x c u se f o r fa ili n g to r ai s e the par ol e cl ai m i n hi s fi r s tpet i t i on. A s a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r , w e d o n o tg a i n s a y th a t , i n tu i t i v e l y, t her e appe ar s t o be a pr i nci pl ed di s t i nct i on betw een pe t i t i ons that attack t he under l y i ng convi ct i on and thos e thatat t ack the admi ni s t r at i on of t h e sent ence ar i s i ng fr om thatconvi ct i on. H ow ever , gi ven the l anguage a n d s t atut orypurpos e of § 2244, w hi ch codi fi es t he l ongs t andi ng pol i cyagai ns tpi ece m eal l i t i gat i on th a t w a s a t th e h e a rt o f th e a b u s e o f th e w r i t d o c tr in e , s ee Mc C le s ke

y , 499 U

. S. at485, i ti s nots urpr i s i ng t hatt h ere is no s ta tu to ry o r p re c e d e n tia l a u th o ri ty f o r s u c h a d is tin c tio n
. See R e id
v
. Ok l a h o ma , 101 F. 3d 628, 630 ( 10t h C i r
. 1996) ( f i n d i n g th at di s t i nct i ons betw een c hal l enges t o t he execut i on of a s ent ence and chal l enges t o t he under l y i ng convi ct i on “ar e not m ade by

. . . t he re lev a n t sta tu to ry p ro v isio n s, 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 4 4 (b ) & 2 2 5 4 ” ); C f. C oady v. V

aughn , 251 F. 3d 480, 4 8 5- 86 ( 3d C i r
. 2001) (det erm i ning t hat chal l eng es t o st at e paro le bo ard decis i on s m ust b e b r oughtpur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254 and ther efor e r equi r e a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyeven though t he dec i s i on underatt ack is n o t th e u n d erly ing co n v ict ion b u t th e e x ec u ti o n o f th e se n tenc e). M or eover, ever yC our tof A ppeal s t o have a ddr es s ed the ques t i on has r equi r ed a pet i t i onert o r ai s e cl ai m s r el at i ng t o hi s or h e ru n d e r l y i n g c o n v i c t i o n i n t h e s a me p e t i t i o n a s a v a i l a b l e c l a i ms deal i ng w i t h the ad m ini s t r at i on of the s ent ence and has found a p e titio n e r’ s f

a ilu re to d o s o t o b e a n a b u s e o f th e w ri t. S e e R e id , 1 0 1 F

. 3d at630; Mc G a ry v . Sc o tt , 27 F. 3d 181, 183 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ); W hi t t em or e v. U

n ited Stat es , 9 8 6 F

. 2 d 5 7 5 , 5 7 9 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); G oode v. W

ai nw r ight , 7 3 1 F .2 d 1 4 8 2 , 1 4 8 3 -84 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 8 4 ); s ee al

s o Ful l erv. B aker , N o. 94- 3989, 1995 W L 390298, at *1- *2 ( 6t h C i r
. J une 30, 1995) ( unpubl i s hed opi ni on)

. T her efor e, B enchof f ca n notcl ai m thathe w as s om ehow excus ed fr om r ai s i ng th e p a ro le c la im s im p lyb e c a u se h is f irst p e tit io n c h a llen g e d h is t r i al and convi ct i on r athert han the admi ni s t r at i on of hi s s ent ence
.5 W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t B e n c h o f f p ro b a b lyd id n o t n e e d to see k a w ri t of

m an d am u s fro m the P en n sy lvan ia stat e co u rt s b ef o re fi l i ng forfede r al habea s r el i ef. I n D ef oy v. McC ul l ough , 393 F. 3d 439, 4 4 5 (3d C i r
. 2005) , w e hel d t hat“cl ai m s of cons t i tut i onal v iolati o n s in the d en ial o f p aro le [e x ce p t fo r ex pos tf acto cl ai m s] i n Penns y lvan ia need notbe pr es ent ed t o t he s t at e court s vi a a pet i t i on forw r i t of m andamus i n or der t o s at i s fy t he r equi r ementof exhaus t i on. ” I n l i ghtof D ef oy ’ s h o ld in g th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia p eti ti o n ers a re n o t ob li g ated to f il e e ith er a w ri t of

m an d am u s o r a w r i tof habe as corpus befor e cha l l engi ng thei rpar ol e deni al on non- ex p o st fa c to grounds, B enchof f l i kel ydi d notneed t o s eek f u rth e r re lief

in P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate c o u rts b e f o re g o in g d ire c tlyto fede ral cou rt

. N evertheles s, as D ef oy w as deci d ed w el l aft er B enchof f fi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i o n s, B enchof f coul d have re a so n a b lyb e liev e d h e n e e d e d to se e k a w rit o f m a n d a m u s p rio r to f ili n g th is c laim in f

e d e ra l co u rt.

12 A ltern a tiv e ly , B e n c h o f f a ttem p ts to ju stif

yh is f a ilu re to i ncl ude the par ol e cl ai m i n hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on beca us e he ha d n o t y e t ex h a u ste d th e p a ro le c laim in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia sta te c o u rts a t th e tim e h e f

il e d h is f irst p e tit io n . In d e e d , B e n c h o f f h a d o n ly begun the p roc ess of fi l i ng fora s er i es of s t at e courtr emedi es on A pri l 1, 20 02

. W e dis agree t hat t his can excu se h i s fa i l ure to rai se 5 th e c la im in h is f

ir s t p e titio n
. F irst, th e f

a c t th a t B e n c h o f

f h a d a lre a d yra ise d h is p a ro le clai m i n s t at e courtfor ecl os es anyar gum entthatthe fa ctual pr edi cat e fort he cla i m w as notdevel oped orthatB enchof f w as som eho w un aw are of t he parol e cl ai m at t he t i m e he f i l ed h i s fi rs t h a b e a s p e titio n
. See O lds v. A r m ontr out , 9 1 9 F .2 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 2 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (“ H a v in g ‘p re se n ted e a c h o f th e se [ g ro u n d s] to th e sta te co u rt s b ef

o re the first p eti ti o n fo r ha b ea s w as f il ed

. . . [p eti ti o n er] har dl ycan c ont end thatt hes e cl ai m s w er e unknow n t o hi m at[the t i m e he f

i l ed hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on]

. ’ ”) (qu o ti ng A nt one v. D ugger , 4 6 5 U .S . 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (1 9 8 4 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ))

. M or eover , fai l ur e t o have e xhaus t ed t he par ol e cl ai m i s not an ex cuse fo r B ench off ’s fai l ure t o rai se the clai m in his fi rs t pet i t i on. I n R os e v. Lundy , the Supr eme C our thel d that

“ [ I ] f a p r i s o n e rd e l i b e r a t e l y wi t h h o l d s o n e o f two13 gr ounds for fede r al col l at er al r el i ef at t he t i m e of f i l i ng h i s f i r s ta p p l i c a t i o n , i n th e h o p e o f b e i n g g r a n t e d two hear i ngs r ather t han one or fors om e others uch r eas on, he maybe dee m ed t o have w ai ved hi s r i ght t o a hea r i ng on a s econd a ppl i cat i on pr es ent i ng the w i t hhel d gr ound.

. . . N ot hi ng i n t he tr adi t i ons of habe as corpus r eq u i r es t he fe der al court s to t ol er at e nee dl es s pi ece m eal l i t i gati on , or t o e ntert ai n co l l at eral proceed i ng s w ho se on l y p u rp o s e i s t o v e x , h a r a s s , o r d e l a y ”

. . . . [A ] pr i s onerw ho deci des t o pr ocee d onl yw i t h hi s exhaus t ed cl ai m s and del i ber at elys et s as i de hi s unexhaus t ed cl ai m s r i sks di sm i ssal of sub sequen tfede ral peti t i on s.
455 U

. S. 509, 521 ( 1982) ( quot i ng Sanders v. Un ited Stat es , 373 U .S . 1 , 1 8 (1 9 6 3 ))

. Fol l ow i ng t hi s r eas oni ng, the Fi fth C i r cui t has hel d that“the s ol e f a c tt h a tt h e n e w cl a i ms wer e u n e x h a u s t e d whe n t h e e ar l i er fede r al w r i tw as pr os ecut ed w i l l notexcus e thei rom i s s i on. ” C r one v . C o c kre ll , 324 F. 3d 833, 837 ( 5th C i r
. 2003) ( quot i ng J o n e s v. Este lle , 7 2 2 F .2 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) ( e n b a n c ))

. C r one is cl o sely anal ogous t o B enchof f’ s cas e. I n C r one , the pet i t i oner ch all en g ed h is sen tenc e a n d all eg ed inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f counse l i n hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on, w hi ch w as di s m i s s ed w i t h p rejud ice. Sever al m ont hs l at er , C r one fi l ed a s econd f eder al h ab eas pet i t i on c laim in g th a t h e w a s im p ro p e rlyd e n ied jail-tim e c re d its. T h e F if th C irc u it fo u n d th a t C ro n e sh o u ld h a v e b ro u g h t h is j a il

- tim e c re d it cl ai m i n hi s fi r s tpet i t i o n ev en though thi s cl ai m had noty etbeen exhaus t ed i n t he s t at e court s , beca us e, atthe t i m e of hi s fi r s tpet i t i on, th e f a c tu a l p re d ica te f

o r th e jail-tim e c re d it cla im w a s c o m p lete ly e s t a b l i s h e d

. Re l y i n g on R o s e v. Lundy , t he pane l hel d t hatt he fai l ur e t o r ai s e the j ai l

- t i m e cl ai m i n hi s fi r s tpet i t i on cons t i tut ed an a b u se o f th e w rit, a n d th e p e tit io n th e re f o re w a s “s u c c e ss iv e ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

§ 2 2 4 4 (b ). I

d. W e a g re e w ith th e F if

th C irc u it th a t R os e v. Lundy r equi r es a pet i t i onert o ei t herful l yexhaus tal l cl ai m s pr i or t o fi l i ng a pet i t i on ort o r ai s e both exhaus t ed and une xhaus t ed cl ai m s i n the fi r s thabea s pet i t i on. I f B enchof

f’ s par ol e cl ai m w as unexhaus t ed, t hen R os e v.6W e hav e endor s ed the opt i on of “[ s ] t ay i ng a habe as p e tit io n p e n d in g e x h a u stio n o f sta te r e m e d ies ” a s a “ p e rm iss ib le and ef fec t i ve w ay t o avoi d barr i ng fr om fede r al cour ta pet i t i oner w h o tim e lyf

iles a m ix e d p e tit io n ,” ra th e r th a n o u trig h t d ism iss a l. C rew s v. H

orn , 3 6 0 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 1 -5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); se e als o Sl ut z kerv. Johns on , 393 F. 3d 373, 383 ( 3d C i r
. 2004) ( di s cus s i ng t h e e v o l u t i o n o f

o u r“ s t a y - a nd

- a be y ” p r o c e d u r e )

. Th e S u p r e me C o u rt h a s re c e n tlya p p ro v e d , b u t li m ited , the a v a ilab ili tyo f th is pr ocedur e, fi ndi ng “s t ay - and- abey ” appr op ri ate onl y“w hen the d istri ct co u rtd eterm ines there w as g o o d ca u se f o r th e p eti ti o n er’s f a ilu re to e x h a u st h is c laim s firs t in sta te c o u rt” a n d h o ld in g th a t it sh o u ld n o t b e e m p lo y e d “ w h e n h is u n e x h a u ste d c laim s a re p lain ly m er i t l es s
. ” R hi nes v. W eber , 1 2 5 S .C t. 1 5 2 8 , — (2 0 0 5 ). 14 Lundy w oul d r equi r e t he di s m i s s al of t he pet i t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce. 6 B enchof f coul d t hen have pr oper l y r e- fi l ed t he pet i t i on once a l l of hi s cl aim s w ere exhaus t ed. T hi s r e- fi l ed pet i t i on w oul d not c o n s titu te a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s i v e p e titio n
. See Slack v

. McD ani el , 529 U

. S. 473, 488 ( 2000) ( hol di ng t hata habe as pet i t i on fi l ed af t er a p re v i ou s peti t i on w as dis m i ssed on exh aust i on groun ds i s no t a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n ); C hrist y v. H orn , 115 F. 3d 201, 208 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). R a t h e rt h a n f o l l o w t h e p r o c e d u r e p r e s c r i b e d b y R ose v. Lundy and i t s progen y , B ench off cho se i nst ead to w i t hh old h is p a ro le c laim w h ile h e e x h a u ste d it i n sta te c o u rt, ren d e rin g th is p e titio n “ s u c c e s s iv e ” u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b ).
D.
G i ven thatB enchof

f’ s pet i t i on i s s ucce s s i ve, the D i s t r i ct C our t w as r equi r ed t o have di s m i s s ed thi s pet i t i on beca us e B enchof f did n ot s at i sfy§ 2 24 4’s pr oced ural and subst anti ve requ i rem ents

. B enchof f fai l ed t o s eek author i zat i on fr om thi s C our tpr i ort o fi l i ng his s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on i n the D i s t r i ctC our tas r equi r ed under28 U

. S. C

. § 2244( b) ( 3) ( A )

. A tal l event s , s uch author i zat i on w oul d not be j u s t i f i e d , a s § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) r e q u i r e s t h e d i s mi s s a l o f “ s e cond or successi ve” p et i t i on s unles s theyfal l i nto one o f t w o ex cepti on s, bot h of w hi ch ar e i nappl i cabl e t o B enchof f’ s cl ai m
. Sect i on 2244, t her efor e, depr i ved the D i s t r i ct C our t of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on t o h e a rBe n c h o f

f ’ s p a r o l e c l a i m.15 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e t he j udgm ent of the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand w i t h di r ect i ons t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on for l ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on.