2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-3-2013


# I n R e: M ich a el P e nd let on

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 12-3617

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: M ich a e l P e nd le t on " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 7.

h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/7PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 12

- 3617, 12

- 3996 and 13

- 1455

In re: MICHAEL J. PENDLETON,

Petitioner in Case No. 12

- 3617

In re: FRANKLIN X. BA INES,

Petitioner in Case No. 12

- 3996

In re: COREY GRANT,

Petitioner in Case No. 13

- 14552 On Applications for Leave to File a Second or Successive

Habeas Petitio n pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)

No. 12

- 3617 related to W.D. Pa. No. 12

- cv

- 00195 before the Honorable Kim R. Gibson, District Judge and Honorable Keith A. Pesto, Magistrate Judge

No. 12

- 3996 related to E.D. Pa. No. 12

- cv

- 05672

before the Honorabl e Edmund V. Ludwig

No. 13

- 1455 related to D. N.J. No. 06

- cv

- 05952

before Honorable Harold A. Ackerman

Argued on September 10, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR.,

Circuit Judges

.

(Opinion filed: October 3, 2013)

Li sa B. Freeland, Esquire (Argued)

Federal Public Defender Western District of Pennsylvania

Office of Federal Public Defender 1001 Liberty Avenue 1500 Liberty Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Petitioner Michael J. Pendleton3 Stephen A. Zappal a, Jr., Esquire District Attorney Michael W. Streily, Esquire Deputy District Attorney Rusheen R. Pettit, Esquire (Argued) Assistant District Attorney Allegheny County Office of the District Attorney

4 36 Grant Street

303 Courthouse Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for Respondent Gerald Rozum, Superintendent at SCI Somerset

David R. Fine, Esquire (Argued) George A. Bibikos, Esquire K&L Gates, LLP Market Square Plaza 17 North Second Street, 18 th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

Counsel for Petitioner Frankl in X. Baines4 R. Seth Williams, Esquire District Attorney Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Esquire Chief, Appeals Unit Thomas W. Dolgenos, Esquire Chief, Federal Litigation Ronald Eisenberg, Esquire (Argued) Deputy District Attorney Edward F. McCann, Jr., E squire First Assistant District Attorney Philadelphia County Office of District Attorney

3 South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107

Counsel for Respondents Louis S. Folino, Superintendent, SCI, Green; The Attorney

General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylv ania

Marc Bookman, Esq. Atlantic Center for Capital Representation

1315 Walnut Street

– Ste. 1331 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Counsel for the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation, Amicus Petitioner5 Bradley S. Bridge, Esq.

Defender Association of Philadelphia

1441 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Amicus Petitioner

Marsha L. Levick, Esq. Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia

1315 Walnut Street

– Ste. 400 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Counse l for the Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia, Amicus Petitioner

David B. Glazer, Esquire (Argued)

Glazer & Luciano

19

- 21 West Mount Pleasant Avenue Livingston, NJ 07039

Counsel for Petition er Corey Grant6 Paul J. Fishman, Esquire

United S tates Attorney Mark E. Coyne, Esquire Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Appeals Division Steven G. Sanders, Esquire (Argued) Assistant United States Attorney Office of United States Attorney

970 Broad Street

– Rm. 700 Newark, NJ 07102

Counsel f or Respondent United States of

America

PER CURIAM

In Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455 , 2460 (2010)

, the Supreme Court held that “ mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes

violates the Eighth Amendment‟ s p rohibition on „cruel and unusual punishments.‟” Corey Grant, Frankli n X. Baines,

and Michael J. Pen dleton (collectively, “Petitioners”) , each of

whom claims to be serving a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for offenses committe d as juveniles, seek our authorization to file successive habeas

corpus petition s under 28 U.S.C. §§ 225 4 (for Baines and Pendleton) and 2255 (for Grant) to raise Miller claims

. Both

Baines and Pendleton were convicted in state court in Pennsylvania, and Grant was convicted in federal court in New Jersey. Because these petitions raise similar legal7 questions, we consolidated them for argument and now address them jointly

. Before a second or successive petition may be filed in district court, the petition er must appl y for a certification

from the appropriate United States c ourt of a ppeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A certification giving leave to file a successive petition will be granted when the petitioner has made a “p rima facie” showing that his or her claim relies on

“ a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable.” Id. § 2244 (b)(2)(A) & (3)(A)(C) ; see also § 2255(h)(2)

. Under our precedent , a “prima facie showing” in this context merely means “ „ a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court. ‟ ”

Goldblum v. Klem , 510 F.3d 204, 2 20 (3d Cir. 2007) ( quoting

Bennett v. United States , 119 F.3d 468, 469 (7th Cir. 1997))

.

The parties here agree that Miller states a new rule of constitutional law, but dispute whether the Supreme Court has

made Miller retroactive to cases on collateral review. In
Pendleton‟s and Baines‟s cases, Pennsylvania argues that

Miller is not retr oactive; in Grant‟s case, the United State s asserts that Miller is retroactive but that Grant‟s sentence

satisfies the new Miller rule and so no relief is warranted

. 1

1 At this early stage, we will not consider whether Grant actually qualifies for relief under Miller . We only determine

whether Grant has made a prima facie showing that Miller

created “ a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to

cas es on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2)

. See

Goldblum , 510 F.3d at 219 (“„[S]ufficient showing of possible merit‟ in this context does not refer to the merits of8 Petitioners argue: (1) that the Supreme Court implicitly made

Miller ret roactive by appl ying the rule to Miller ‟s companion

case, Jackson v. Hobbs , which came to the Court through

Arkansas‟s state collateral review process; (2) that Miller announced a substantive rule that “necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant . . . face s a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him, ” Schriro v. Summerlin , 542

U.S. 348 , 352 (2004) (internal quotations marks omitted), and therefore should be given retroactive effect under Teague v.

Lane

, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (plurality) ; and (3) that , i n the alternative, Miller qualifies as a “watershed procedural rule [] of criminal procedure ” meriting retroactive application under Teague , 489 U.S. at 311

.

After extensive briefing and oral argument, we conclude that Petitioners have made a prima facie showing

that Miller is retroactive. In doing so, we join several of our

sister c ourts of a ppeals. See, e.g

., Wang v. United States , No.

13

- 2426 (2d Cir. July 16, 2013) (granting motion to file a successive habeas corpus petition raising a Miller claim ); I n re James , No. 12

- 287 (4th Cir. May 10, 2013) (same);

Johnson v. United States , 720 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2013 ) (per curiam) (same)

. B ut see In re Morgan , 713 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 2013) (concluding that Miller is not retroactive)

, reh’g en

banc denied , 717 F.3d 1186 ; Craig v. Cain , No. 12

- 30035,

2013 WL 69128 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) (per curiam) (same)

.

However, we stress that o ur grant is tentative

, and the District Court must dismiss the habeas corpus petition for

the claims asserted in the pet ition. Rather, it refers to the merits of a petitioner‟s showing with respect to the

substant ive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).”).9 lack of jurisdiction if it finds that t he requirements for filing such a petition have not in fact been met. Goldblum , 510 F.3d

at 219

- 20 ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4) (“A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the court of appeals has aut horized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the requirements of this section.”). We therefore grant Petitioners‟ motions under §§ 2244(b)(3) and 2255(h) and authorize each to file a successive habeas corpus petition in

the dist rict court.