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 9-24-2010 

# Mich a el S i luk Jr

. v . J eff rey A. B e ard 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 . 09-3806

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 authori 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 " Mich a el S i luk Jr

. v . J eff r ey A. Be ar d " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 557. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/557NOT 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. 09- 3806

_____________ M IC H A E L E . S IL U K , J R ., A ppel l ant

v. J E FFR E Y A . B E A R D , Secr et aryof the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 23 and 43( b) O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a Ju d g m en t of 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 ( C i v. N o. 4: 07- 00605) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember24, 2010 B efore: M C K E E , A M B R O , and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

Fi l ed: Sept ember24, 2010

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. M i chae l E . Si l uk, J r . , appea l s a j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on2

f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t f o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly s u m m a ri z e th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . O n N ovember7, 2002, a j urybefor e the D auphi n C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas f o u n d S ilu k g u iltyo f

f o u r c o u n ts o f

ra p e , tw o c o u n ts e a c h o f a g g ra v a ted in d e c e n t as sa u lt, r obbery , and s i m pl e as s aul t , and one c ounteac h of aggr avat ed as s aul t , s exual as s aul t , and in v o lu n tar yd e v iate se x u a l in ter c o u rse . T h e se c o n v ictio n s a ro se o u t o f a se rie s o f

a ss a u lts on pr os t i tut es thatSi l uk comm i t t ed i n 2001. S om e m on ths pri or t o tr i al , M ari a H ou sew orth, on e of the com plai ning w i tnesses, t es t i fi ed aga i ns tSi l uk ata Pr el i m i naryH ear i ng. T he pr os ecut i on s oughtt o have H ous ew or th t es t i fyagai n attr i al , butw as unabl e t o l ocat e her . A s tr i al appr oache d, the p ro se c u tio n e n g a g e d th e a ss ista n c e o f se v e ra l law e n f

o rc e m e n t ag e n c ies in a n a ttem p t to det erm i ne herw her eabout s . H ous ew or th w as fi nal l ydi s cover ed appr oxi m at el yone w eek befor e tr i al , r ecove r i ng fr om a guns hotw ound t o the l eg i n a Fl or i da hos pi t al . T hough equi pped w i th Penns y l vani a w arr ant s forH ous ew or th’ s arr es t , Fl or i da l aw enfor cement a g e n ts re f

u s e d to ta k e h e r i n to c u s to d yb e c a u s e o f h e r u n s ta b le m e d ic a l c o n d itio n . V erysh o rt lythere af

ter, the p rose cu ti o n rec eive d a lett er f rom H o u sew o rth ’s phy s i ci an i ndi cat i ng that , though H ous ew or th had bee n di s char ged fr om the hos pi t al on O ct ober21, 2002, herm edi cal condi t i on pr ecl uded herfr om tr avel i ng i n or dert o t es t i fyat3

S il u k ’s tri al. B ase d o n this l ett er, de fe n se c o u n sel sti p u lat ed to H o u sew o rth ’s unavai l abi l i tyt o t es t i fyattr i al . I n acc or dance w i th thats t i pul at i on, the tr i al courtfound H ous ew or th t o be unava i l abl e t o appea ras a w i tnes s and perm i t t ed the pr os ecut i on t o r ead H o u s e w o r th ’ s f

o r m e rt e s t i m o n y f

r o m th e p r e l i m i n a ry h e a r i n g t o th e j u ry. A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f

th e trial, S ilu k w a s c o n v icte d o f th irtee n o f

th e f if tee n c o u n ts w i th w hi ch he ha d been c har ged. T he tr i al courts ubs equent l ys ent ence d hi m t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi fty - one y ear s and ni ne mont hs t o 105 y ear s . O n M ar ch 21, 2003, Si l uk a p p e a led h is s e n ten c e to th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, w h ich a f f irm e d th e ju d g m e n t, and on O ct ober13, 2004, the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on for a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l. W i th the as s i s t ance of pos t - convi ct i on couns el , Si l uk fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on for r el i ef unde rPenns y l vani a’ s Post - C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , 42 Pa. C . S. A . §§ 9541, et. seq , in w h ich h e ra ised inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel claim s b ase d o n tr ial co u n sel’s fai l ur es t o ( 1) pr es erve obj ect i ons , ( 2) conductan ade quat e pr etr i al i nves t i gat i on, and ( 3) obj ectt o the form of the j uryi ns truct i ons . O n D ece m ber21, 2005, Si l uk’ s pos t - convi ct i on couns el fi l ed a “ no m er i tl ett er ” as ki ng forperm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw . She w as al l ow ed t o do s o on J anuary9, 2006. O n J anuary24, 2006, Si l uk fi l ed an a m ended PC R A pet i t i on pr o s e, s ett i ng for th a panopl yof gr ounds forr el i ef. O ne w eek l at er , the C our tof C om m on Pl eas di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on as m er i t l es s . Si l uk appea l ed thi s deci s i on t o the Super i orC our t , r ai s i ng fi veT h e d o c u m e n t p u rp o rte d lyd e m o n stra tin g th a t S ilu k ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to 1 c o n f ro n tatio n c laim w a s f

a irlyp re se n ted to th e sta te c o u rt is illeg ib le. S e e A p p e n d ix V o lu m e II (“ A p p . II ” ), 2 1 . T h u s , it is n o t e n tir e ly cl e a r t h a t th is c la im w a s e x h a u s te d . No n e th e l e s s , b e c a u s e we f i n d th i s c l a i m t o b e p r o c e d u r a l l yd e f a u l t e d , we r e a c h th e s a me out come w hetherornotthe cl ai m w as exhaus t ed. W h il e u n d er n o rm al circu m stan ce s S il u k w o u ld h av e h ad to lod g e a d iscreti o n ary 2 appea l t o the s t at e’ s hi ghes tcourti n or dert o ful l yexhaus thi s cl ai m s , O r derN o. 218 of the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a r ender s r evi ew i n thatcourtunavai l abl e forpurpos es of exha us t i ng s t at e courtr emedi es under28 U . S. C . § 2254. L amber tv. B l ackw el l , 387 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 3 3 -23 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 g r o u n d s f

o rr e l i e f , wh i c h i n c l u d e d a c l a i m f o ri n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l . He di vi ded the i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m i nt o a numberof s ubpart s , one of w hi ch w as prem i sed on tri al cou nsel ’s st i pu l at i on t o H ou sew orth’s unav ai l abil i tyt o ap pear as a w i tnes s . H e al s o al l eged thatthe tr i al courthad deni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtof confr ont at i on byperm i t t i ng the pr os ecut i on t o r ead H ous ew or th’ s pr el i m i naryhear i ng t es t i m onyt o t he j ury . O n M ar ch 6, 2007, the Super i orC ourtaff i r m ed the di s m i s s al of 1 Si l uk’ s PC R A pet i t i on, fi ndi ng that , beca us e Si l uk had di s r egar ded the Penns y l vani a R ul es of A pp el l at e P rocedu re, he h ad p rocedu ral l ydefa ult ed all of h i s cl ai m s. 2 O n M ar ch 30, 2007, Si l uk fi l ed the pr es enthabea s corpus pet i t i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed. T her eaf t er , thi s courtgr ant ed Si l uk a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyas t o tw o cl ai m s : ( 1) w hetherthe tr i al courtdepr i ved Si l uk of hi s r i ghtof conf r ont at i on underthe Si xth A m endmentw hen i tadmi t t ed H ous ew or th’ s pr el i m i naryhear i ng tes tim o n y , an d (2 ) w h e th e r tria l co u n se l p ro v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b ystip u latin g to H o u sew o rth ’s un av ail ab il ityto ap p ea r as a w itn ess a t tri al. F o r ea ch claim , this co u rtB eca us e Si l uk has defa ul t ed hi s fede r al cl ai m s i n s t at e court , he meet s the 3 t echni cal r equi r ement s forexhaus t i on i n thatther e ar e no s t at e r emedi es anyl onger avai l abl e t o hi m . See C ol eman, 501 U . S. at732 ( ci t i ng 28 U . S. C . § 2254( b) ; E ngl e v. Is a a c , 4 5 6 U .S . 1 0 7 , 1 2 5 -2 6 n .8 (1 9 8 2 )) . 5 i nst ruct ed the part i es t o ad dress w hetherS i l uk had full yexh aust ed h i s st at e rem edies , w hetherthe cl ai m had bee n pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, and i f pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, w hether th e re is a n yb a sis u p o n w h ich to e x c u se th e p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331, 2 2 5 4 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 , 2 2 5 3 . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our trul ed on Si l uk’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on w i thout c o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , o u r r e v ie w o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n is p le n a ry. J a c o b s v . H o rn , 3 9 5 F .3 d 9 2 , 9 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III . W e w il l no t r ea ch the m erit s o f S il u k ’s fe d era l cl aim s b ec au se th eyw ere proced ural l ydefa ult ed in st at e cou rtand S i l uk has fail ed to dem on strat e cause to excu se th e d e f a u lt. 3 T h e d o ctri n e o f p roc ed u ral de fa u ltb ars f ed era l hab ea s rev iew w h en the s tat e c o u rt h a s d e c l i n e d t o a d d r e s s a p r i s o n e r ’ s f e d e r a l c l a i m s b e c a u s e th e p r i s o n e rf a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y a stat e p roc ed u ral requ ir em en t. C o lem an v . T h o m p so n , 5 0 1 U . S . 7 2 2 , 7 2 9 -30 (19 9 1 );“ In th e h a b e a s c o n tex t, th e a p p lica tio n o f th e in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te s tate 4 g ro u n d d o c tr in e is g ro u n d e d in c o n c e rn s o f c o m ity a n d f

e d e ra lis m . W ith o u t th e ru le , a fede r al di s tr i ctcourtw oul d be abl e t o do i n habea s w hatthi s C our tcoul d notdo on di r ect r evi ew ; habea s w oul d offe rs t at e pr i s oner s w hos e cus t odyw as s uppor t ed byi ndepende nt and ade quat e s t at e gr ounds an end run ar ound the l i m i t s of thi s C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on and a m e a n s to u n d e rm in e th e S ta te ' s in te re s t in e n f o rc in g its la w s .” C o le m a n , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 7 3 0 . 6 T ay l orv. H orn, 504 F. 3d 416, 427 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n s uch a c as e, “the s t at e j udgm ent r es t s on i ndepende ntand ade quat e s t at e pr ocedur al gr ounds , ” C ol eman, 501 U . S. at730 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ), an d a f e d e ra l co u rt is g e n e ra llyn o t at lib e rtyto re v iew th e ju d g m e n t. A s i s the ca s e w hen a pr i s onerfai l s t o exhaus thi s s t at e r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng a fede r al habea s pet i t i on, a “ha beas pet i t i onerw ho has fai l ed t o m eetthe St at e’ s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s forpr es ent i ng hi s fede r al cl ai m s has depr i ved the s t at e court s of an oppor tuni tyt o addr es s thos e cl ai m s i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . ” I d. at732. A ccor di ngl y , outof c o n c e rn s o f

c o m itya n d f

e d e ra lism , w e “ re q u ire a p riso n e r to d e m o n stra te c a u se f o r h is 4 s t at e- courtdefa ul tof any fede r al cl ai m , and pr ej udi ce ther efr om , befor e the fe der al habea s courtw i l l cons i derthe mer i t s of thatcl ai m . ” Edw ar ds v. C arpent er , 529 U . S. 446, 451 ( 2000) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . A habea s pet i t i oneri s exempt ed fr om t he r equi r ementthathe make a s how i ng of ca us e and pr ej udi ce onl yi n the ci r cumst ance , not ati s s ue her e, “i n w hi ch he c an demonstr at e a s uffi ci entpr obabi l i tythatfai l ur e t o r evi ew hi s fede r al 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. ” I d.7

O n t he r ecor d befor e us , i tappea r s thatthe tw o cl ai m s forw hi ch w e gr ant ed appe al w er e pr es ent ed t o t he s t at e courtbySi l uk’ s pr o s e PC R A pet i t i on, w hi ch the Super i or C our tdi s m i s s ed i n i t s ent i r etyforfai l ur e t o compl yw i th the Penns y l vani a R ul es of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re . In a n a ttem p t to d e m o n stra te th a t ca u se e x ists to e x c u se h is f a ilu re to sa tisf yth e sta te’ s p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts, S ilu k a ss e rts o n lyth a t h e d id n o t an ticip a te h is p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n c o u n s e l ’ s d e c i s i o n t o wi th d r a w; h e wa s f o r c e d t o p r o c e e d wi th h i s P CRA p e tit io n p ro se ; an d h e , the re f o re , “h a d little o r n o c h a n c e o f c o m p ly in g w ith th e R u les in the form atof hi s appea l . ” Si l uk’ s R epl yB r . , 9. B utw hi l e court s have a s peci al obl i gat i on t o cons true the pl eadi ngs of pr o s e l i t i gant s l i ber al l y , G i l es v. K earney , 571 F. 3d 318, 322 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , the r i ghtof s el f- r epr es ent at i on does notexempta partyfr om compl i ance w i th r el evantrul es of pr ocedur al l aw . See H edges v. U ni t ed St at es , 404 F. 3d 744, 753 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ( “W hi l e w e have i ns i s t ed thatthe pl eadi ngs pr epar ed bypr i s oner s w ho do nothave a cce s s t o couns el be l i ber al l ycons trued, and have hel d thats om e pr ocedur al rul es m us tgi ve w aybeca us e of the uni que ci r cumst ance of i ncar cer at i on, w e have nevers ugges t ed thatpr ocedur al rul es i n or di naryci vi l l i t i gat i on sh o u ld b e interp reted so as to ex cu se m ist ak es b ytho se w h o p roc ee d w ith o u t cou n sel. ”); se e a lso C o lli n s v . Ill in o is, 5 5 4 F .3 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ A s w e h a v e re p e a ted ly hel d, even pr o s e l i t i gant s m us tfol l ow pr ocedur al rul es . . . . ”) . W e mustther efor e conc l ude thatSi l uk’ s pr o s e s t atus , w i thoutm or e, cannotcons t i tut e ca us e s uffi ci entt o excus e theT he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed Si l uk’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m on t he 5 m e rits, f irst f in d in g it t o h a v e b e e n e x h a u ste d . W h ile th is c laim w a s in d e e d e x h a u ste d , it w as al so proced ural l ydefa ult ed an d, therefore, w e w i l l no tadd res s i ton the m eri t s. 8 pr ocedur al defa ul tof hi s fede r al cl ai m s i n s t at e court . A ccor di ngl y , w e maynotcons i der the mer i t s of hi s pet i t i on. 5 I V. F o r th ese rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rtd en y ing S il u k ’s peti t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus.