Opinion ID: 3013875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: f acts and p rocedural

Text: Pridgen had failed to exhaust his state B ACKGROUND court remedies. Thereafter, the Superior Pridgen was convicted in July 1993 Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of first-degree murder in state court in of Pridgen’s PCRA petition, and on Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. He was January 12, 1999, the Pennsylvania sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. Supreme Court denied his appeal. At this At trial, the government established that point, Pridgen’s state remedies had been Pridgen fired a handgun at Sheila Wright exhausted and he became eligible to file a with the intent to kill her, but, instead, he petition for federal habeas relief. 28 shot and killed Colin Koulesser, who was U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Holloway v. positioned behind Wright. After an Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 714 (3d Cir. 2004). unsuccessful direct appeal, Pridgen filed a Section 2244(d) of the Anti- petition under the Pennsylvania Post Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), claiming (AEDPA) of 1996 sets forth a one-year ineffective assistance of counsel, statute of limitations period following prosecutorial misconduct, and actual direct review in the state courts within innocence. The Court of Common Pleas which a state prisoner may file a petition of Lancaster County denied Pridgen’s for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § petition and he appealed. 2244. However, section 2244(d)(2) provides that “the time during which a properly filed application for State post- 1 The District Court concluded that it conviction or other collateral review with was bound, under the law of the case respect to the pertinent judgment or claim doctrine, by an earlier panel of this Court’s is pending shall not be counted toward any denial of a Certificate of Appealability to period of limitation under this subsection.” Pridgen on a separate claim raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (emphasis added). 60(b) motion. Because we conclude that Pridgen’s second PCRA petition was not Rather than filing a petition for “properly filed” under AEDPA, we do not habeas relief, Pridgen, in February 1999, reach the law of the case issue. 2 filed a second PCRA petition in state filed, in the District Court, a Motion for court. The Court of Common Pleas denied Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule the petition because it was filed beyond the of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (2) and (6).2 one-year period permitted by state law. 42 Pridgen’s motion set forth three separate Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (1982). The grounds for relief: he sought relief Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, and pursuant to Rule 60(b) on the grounds that on June 20, 2000, the state Supreme Court newly discovered evidence and evidence declined to hear the appeal. that he inadvertently failed to include in his habeas petition demonstrate that (1) the On July 24, 2000, a year and a half state court erred in denying his second after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court PCRA petition as untimely; (2) the state denied his first PCRA petition, Pridgen court lacked jurisdiction to rule that the again filed for habeas relief in federal claims raised in his second petition were court. The District Court dismissed the federal petition, reasoning that, because the Pennsylvania courts dismissed 2 Pridgen’s second PCRA petition as Rule 60(b) provides in part: untimely, the PCRA petition had not been “properly filed” and thus could not act to ( b ) M i s t a k e s ; toll the one-year statute of limitations Inadvertence; Excusable under AEDPA. The District Court Neglect; Newly Discovered reasoned that because the section 2244 Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On statute of limitations began to run on motion and upon such terms January 13, 1999 (the day after the as are just, the court may Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his relieve a party or a party’s appeal), the one-year period had expired legal representative from a by the time Pridgen filed his habeas final judgment, order, or petition in July 2000. 28 U.S.C. § proceeding for the following 2244(d)(1)(A). Therefore, the District r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) m i s ta k e , Court dismissed Pridgen’s habeas petition inadvertence, surprise, or in its entirety and declined to issue him a excusable neglect; (2) newly Certificate of Appealability (COA). discovered evidence which by due diligence could not Pridgen then petitioned this Court have been discovered in for a CO A under 28 U.S .C. § time to move for a new trial 2253(c)(1)(A). We denied the petition for under Rule 59(b) . . . or (6) the same reasons stated by the District any other reason justifying Court – Pridgen’s habeas petition was not relief from the operation of timely filed (Order, October 31, 2001, the judgment.