Case Name: Darren JOHNSON, Appellant v. David DIGUGLIELMO
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-01
Citations: 343 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 05-2179
Parties: Darren JOHNSON, Appellant v. David DIGUGLIELMO.
Judges: Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 343
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Darren JOHNSON, Appellant v. David DIGUGLIELMO.
No. 05-2179.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued March 11, 2008.
Opinion Filed: Sept. 1, 2009.
Elayne C. Bryn, Esq. [Argued], Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.
Robert M. Falin, Esq., Office of District Attorney, Norristown, PA, for Appellee.
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Pursuant to Rule 43(c), F.R.A.P.)

Opinion:
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
On April 4, 2005, the District Court declined to review Darren Johnson's habeas petition on the grounds that he had defaulted his claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule. The basis for this alleged default is petitioner's violation of Pennsylvania's "previously litigated" rule, which bars a petitioner from seeking review under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") unless he/she can show that the allegation of error "has not been previously litigated or waived." 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9544(a). For the reasons laid out in our en banc decision in Boyd v. Warden, the 'previously litigated' rule insulates state courts from duplicative efforts, but does not preclude federal habeas review. Boyd v. Warden, 579 F.3d 330, 370-71 (3d Cir.2009) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (en banc). Accordingly, we re verse and remand for further consideration.
. Although Judge Hardiman dissented in Boyd, the portion of his dissent discussing the previously litigated rule was joined by a majority of the court.