Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190729_0001990.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 17:40:10
Document Index: 794059665

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2243', '§ 2254', '§9541', '§ 2254', '§ 2253', '§ 2254', '§ 2253']

FindACase™ | Davis v. Supt. SCI-Retreat
Davis v. Supt. SCI-Retreat
SAWUD DAVIS, Petitioner,
SUPT. SCI-RETREAT, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.
On July 3, 2019, Petitioner Sawud Davis, (“Davis”), a Pennsylvania state inmate presently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat, Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, initiated the above petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). The petition has been given preliminary consideration and, because the claims contained in the petition are unexhausted the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. See also R. Governing § 2254 Cases R.4.
According to the petition, on January 20, 2014, Davis pled guilty to three counts of third degree murder and one count of robbery in Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County No. CP-40-CR-0003752-2012. (Doc. 1, p. 1). He received a sentence of twenty to forty years imprisonment. (Id.). He did not file a direct appeal. (Id. at 2).
On September 19, 2018, he filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§9541-9546, raising claims of newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of plea counsel. (Id. at 3). The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on March 21, 2019. (See electronic docket, https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Sawud Davis, 705 MDA 2019). Davis filed a timely appeal which is presently pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. (Id.)
He filed the instant petition on July 3, 2019 with the heading “Protective.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). He states “[t]his petition is being filed out of caution due to the PCRA Court denied PCRA petition as untimely…. Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of PA and the appeal is still pending.” (Id. at 13). He seeks a stay of this matter pending a decision from the Superior Court. (Id.).
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that- (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Thus, a state prisoner applying for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court must first “exhaust[ ] the remedies available in the courts of the State, ” unless “there is an absence of available State corrective process[ ] or ... circumstances exist that render such process ineffective. . . .” See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997) (finding that “Supreme Court precedent and the AEDPA mandate that prior to determining the merits of [a] petition, [a court] must consider whether [petitioner] is required to present [his or her] unexhausted claims to the [state's] courts”).
Here, it is clear from the face of the petition, and confirmed by information contained in the Superior Court electronic docket sheet, that Davis has not yet exhausted his state remedies. Consequently, the petition will be dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to his right to pursue federal habeas relief upon complete exhaustion of available state court remedies.[1]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”), an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that ...