BALDWIN v. THOMPSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ERIE DIVISION

WILLIAM DELBERT BALDWIN, ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-0334

)

)

Petitioner, )

) United States Magistrate Judge

vs. ) Christopher B. Brown

)

SUPERINTENDENT THOMPSON, )

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE )

)

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, and

)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE )

COUNTY, )

)

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

CHRISTOPHER B. BROWN, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, William Delbert Baldwin, is a state prisoner currently

incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Albion. He has filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 5. The Petition

was served and Respondent, the District Attorney of Erie County (the “District

Attorney”), filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the Petition should be dismissed on a

number of grounds. ECF No. 7. Specifically, the District Attorney argues the

Petition should be dismissed because Baldwin has not complied with the applicable

statute of limitations, has failed to exhaust his state court remedies, has failed to

adequately specify the grounds for relief and the facts supporting each ground, and

1 All parties have consented to jurisdiction before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636. See ECF Nos. 2 and 11.

the Petition is without merit. Id., ¶ 14. Baldwin was ordered to file a response by

July 31, 2024. ECF No. 9. To date, Baldwin has not filed a response nor has he

asked for an extension of time in which to do so.

Critically, however, it appears this Court lacks jurisdiction because this is a

second or successive petition that Baldwin filed without prior authorization from

the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and

a certificate of appealability will be denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts. Further, the

motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice.

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On November 28, 1995, Baldwin plead guilty to three counts each of Rape

and Statutory Rape, four counts of Indecent Assault, and one count of Involuntary

Deviate Sexual Intercourse and Corruption of Minors, Criminal Cases No. CP-25-

CR-0002396-1995 and CP-25-CR-0002397-1995, in the Court of Common Pleas of

Erie County. See Baldwin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, C.A. 09-cv-74-Erie

(W.D.P.A.), ECF No. 19 (“Baldwin I”). Baldwin’s original sentence was imposed on

January 3, 1996, but after reconsideration, a modified aggregate sentence of 45-1/2

to 95 years imprisonment was imposed on February 8, 1996. Id. at p.2. On appeal,

the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on November

20, 1996. Id. Baldwin did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Id.

On July 15, 1997, Baldwin filed his first petition pursuant to the

Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA petition”). Id. The PCRA petition

was dismissed by the state court on September 1, 1997, as Baldwin had failed to set

forth sufficient grounds for relief. Id. Baldwin subsequently filed at least nine

unsuccessful PCRA petitions. ECF No. 7-1.

Baldwin filed his first habeas petition in this Court on April 6, 2009,

challenging his convictions at Criminal Cases No. CP-25-CR-0002396-1995 and CP-

25-CR-0002397-1995 claiming a violation of due process in that he is serving an

unlawful sentence because his plea agreement was not honored when he was

sentenced. See Baldwin I, ECF No. 5. The case was docketed at Civil Action No.

1:09-cv-0074 and assigned to then-Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter. Id.,

ECF No. 1.2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties

voluntarily consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct

proceedings in the case, including entry of a final judgment. Id., ECF Nos. 3 and

13. On July 30, 2010, Judge Baxter dismissed the petition as untimely and denied a

certificate of appealability. ECF No. 19. Baldwin did not file appeal.

Approximately thirteen years later, on November 21, 2023, the Clerk of Court

received the instant federal habeas petition in which Baldwin again challenges his

1996 judgment of sentence. ECF No. 1. Baldwin seems to be arguing that he is

entitled to habeas relief on two new grounds: (1) the trial judge “is related to the

victim” and (2) Erie County told him not to “appeal my case to Federal Court.” ECF

2 Judge Susan Paradise Baxter was sworn in as an Article III federal judge on September 17,

2018. See https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/content/susan-paradise-baxter-district-judge.

No. 5. As relief, Baldwin seeks “time served and discharged” and “Erie Courthouse”

to be investigated. Id. at p. 15.

III. DISCUSSION

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)

mandates that before a petitioner may file a second or successive habeas corpus

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the same state court judgment of

sentence that he previously challenged in federal habeas, he must first obtain an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See, e.g., Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320,

330-33 (2010). Once a petitioner moves for authorization to file a second or

successive petition, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals must decide within

thirty days whether there is a prima facie showing that the application satisfies §

2244’s substantive requirements, which are set forth in § 2244(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3). AEDPA’s allocation of “gatekeeping” responsibilities to the courts of

appeals has divested district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions that are

unauthorized second or successive filings. See., e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.

147, 152 (2007); see also Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 217 (3d Cir. 2007).

The record is clear Baldwin has not obtained leave from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file a second or successive petition. Thus,

because Baldwin has not obtained the required authorization, the instant Petition

constitutes an unauthorized second or successive petition.3 The statute provides

that the district court shall dismiss a second or successive petition that has not been

authorized by the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Therefore, the Court

will dismiss the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction.

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Reasonable jurists would all agree Baldwin has not shown he obtained leave

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file a second or

successive habeas corpus petition. Reasonable jurists would also agree this Court

lacks jurisdiction and authority to consider the second or successive habeas petition

without proof of such leave. See, e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)

(explaining standard for grant of a certificate of appealability where the court does

not address the petition on the merits but on some procedural basis). Accordingly, a

certificate of appealability will be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and a certificate of appealability will be denied. In

light of this, the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss will be denied without

prejudice.

An appropriate Order follows.

3 This Memorandum Opinion should not be read as a comment upon the merits of any claim

Baldwin could raise in a second or successive habeas petition challenging his judgment of sentence,

or whether such petition would be subject to dismissal on other grounds.

BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown

Christopher B. Brown

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: WILLIAM DELBERT BALDWIN

CX5697

SCI ALBION

10745 ROUTE 18

ALBION, PA 16475-0001

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

Michael E. Burns

Office of the District Attorney

Erie County Courthouse

(via ECF electronic notification)