The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL LEE MYERS,
Petitioner CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00484
v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)
HOUSER-TERRA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM
Michael Lee Myers has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1). Myers seeks review of a criminal conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of
Wayne County. Upon preliminary consideration, the petition will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction because Myers has not yet been sentenced. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 13, 2025, in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, a jury found
Myers guilty on charges of indecent assault, disorderly conduct, and harassment. A review of
the docket in that case indicates that Myers’s sentencing is scheduled for May 29, 2025. See
Commonwealth v. Myers, No. CP-64-CR-0000283-2024 (Ct. C. Pl. Wayne Cnty.).1 Myers filed
1 Myers attaches a document from an appeal in a different case, in which he apparently
seeks to challenge a 1994 conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. See
(Doc. 7 at 4). However, Myers does not challenge that conviction in this petition, and even if
he had intended to, the Court could not consider his challenge because the appeal is ongoing.
See Commonwealth v. Myers, No. 213 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 14, 2025)).
the instant petition in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 10, 2025, but the court
transferred it to this district because he was convicted in Wayne County. See (Doc. 3).
II. DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
states that “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the
clerk to notify the petitioner.”
Section 2254 provides that the Court may “entertain an application for a writ of habeas
corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). For purposes of Section 2254, “[f]inal judgment in a criminal
case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156
(2007). Moreover, the Court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus on a claim brought by an
individual in custody pursuant to a state court judgment unless: (1) “the applicant has
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State;” (2) “there is an absence of
available State corrective process;” or (3) “circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B); see also
Wilkerson v. Sup’t Fayette SCI, 871 F.3d 221, 227 (3d Cir. 2017).
In this case, because Myers has not yet been sentenced, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
adjudicate his Section 2254 petition.2 Further, because the case is ongoing, he has not
2 See, e.g., Sandusky v. Hainsworth, No. 3:22-CV-00500, 2022 WL 1280984, at *2 (M.D.
Pa. Apr. 7, 2022), report and recommendation overruled in part on other grounds, 2022 WL
1275643 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2022); Baldwin v. Pennsylvania, No. 1:19-CV-1610, 2019 WL
(footnote continued on next page)
exhausted available state court remedies. See, e.g., Browning v. Pennsylvania, No. 1:21-CV-
1295, 2021 WL 5083587, at *1-2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2021). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
the petition without prejudice to any renewed petition following proper exhaustion.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
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 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). Here,
jurists of reason would not find the disposition of this case debatable. Accordingly, there is no
basis to issue a certificate of appealability.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the petition will be DISMISSED without prejudice. An
appropriate Order follows.
Dated: May 14, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge
5683405, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2019); Hurlbert v. Commonwealth, No. CIV.A. 13-140, 2013
WL 3724839, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 16, 2013).