PATTERSON v. LAMAS et al
Filing
12
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/16/2013. A copy of the Order along with this Notification of Electronic Filing is being sent to Petitioner via first class mail at his address of record. (tmr)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRIQUE PATTERSON,
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SUPERINTENDENT LAMAS; THE
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE )
OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE DISTRICT
)
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
)
FAYETTE,
)
Respondents. )
Civil Action No. 13-414
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 10
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Tyrique Patterson (APetitioner@), proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in order to challenge his
convictions of, inter alia, Third Degree Murder.
Most recently, Petitioner has filed an “Application to Stay” these proceedings, which is
deemed to be a Motion requesting a stay and abeyance of these habeas proceedings (the
“Motion”). ECF No. 10. He seeks a stay of these proceedings because he has “discovered
some ‘exculpatory evidence’ BARDY [sic] MATERIAL” as well as “NEWLY FOUNDED
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW[.]” Id., at 1. He does not specify what the newly discovered Brady
material is, nor when he discovered such alleged Brady material. Nor does he specify in the
Motion what the newly found constitutional law is.
However, Petitioner attached to the Motion
what appears to be a Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) Petition, wherein he seems to
indicate that the “Brady materials” are contained in the state “courts records.” ECF No. 10-1 at
2, ¶ 6.B. The PCRA petition was ostensibly signed on June 19, 2013. We take judicial notice
of the dockets of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County which show that a PCRA
petition was filed on July 8, 2013.1 In the PCRA Petition accompanying the Motion, Petitioner
indicates that the newly found constitutional law upon which he seeks to rely is Martinez v.
Ryan, __ U.S. __, 132 U.S. 1309 (2012) (holding that as an equitable matter, where collateral
attacks are the first opportunity under state law that a criminal convict may bring claims of trial
counsel’s ineffectiveness, the ineffectiveness of counsel provided during the collateral attack may
serve as “cause” to excuse any procedural default of the claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness).
Id., at ¶ 7.C.2
The Court ordered Respondents to file a Response to the Motion and they complied, ECF
No. 11, asserting that Petitioner has not carried his burden to show entitlement to a stay of these
proceedings. This Court agrees.
A habeas petitioner bears the burden of showing “good cause” as to why a habeas petition
should be stayed. See, e.g., Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (habeas petitioner must
establish “good cause”); Ledford v. Ward, No. CIV-05-523-R, 2005 WL 1606443 (W.D. Okla.
June 14, 2005). Petitioner fails to meet that burden herein. As to the alleged Brady material,
Petitioner does not specify what the alleged Brady material is.
1
Moreover if such Brady material
Those dockets of Petitioner’s criminal case are available at:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0000
295-2003
(site last visited on 7/16/2013).
2
Although Petitioner cites to the Court of Appeals decision in Martinez, it is clear that
Petitioner is relying on the Supreme Court’s decision.
2
is in the state “court records” as Petitioner suggests it is according to the PCRA petition, it is
unlikely that he can show that he was reasonably diligent in uncovering such material earlier.
United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 202 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[T]he government is not obliged
under Brady to furnish a defendant with information which he already has or, with any
reasonable diligence, he can obtain himself.”) (quoting U.S. v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256, 262 (3d
Cir. 1984)).
As to the newly discovered United States Supreme Court precedent, Martinez was
decided on March 20, 2012. Petitioner fails to explain why it has taken more than one year to
have discovered this precedent. He further fails to explain how this precedent will help him or
which claims of trial counsel were presumably procedurally defaulted so as to seek to excuse the
procedural default of such claims of ineffectiveness.
Lastly, Petitioner fails to show that any potential new claims he has are meritorious. See,
e.g., Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. at 277 (“even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure [to
present his claims to the state court prior to coming to federal court], the district court would
abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly
meritless.”).
3
Accordingly,
AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2013, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner=s Motion to
Stay and Abey this Case is DENIED without prejudice.3
s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: July 16, 2013
cc:
Tyrique Patterson
FM-9675
SCI Rockview
1 Rockview Road
Bellefonte, PA 16823
All counsel of record via CM-ECF
3
The parties have consented to have the Magistrate Judge exercise plenary jurisdiction. ECF
Nos. 4 and 9.
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
