HOYE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PITTSBURGH DIVISION

NATHAN RAWSHAWN HOYE, ) Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-1454

)

)

Petitioner, ) Joy Flowers Conti

)

vs. ) Senior United States District Judge

)

ALLEGHENY COURTS and )

)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF Christopher B. Brown

)

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, ) United States Magistrate Judge

)

)

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CHRISTOPHER B. BROWN, United States Magistrate Judge

I. RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, Nathan Rawshawn Hoye, is a former Pennsylvania state prisoner.

He has filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The Court may dismiss the petition prior to service if it plainly appears Hoye

is not entitled to relief. That is the case here as the petition is a second or

successive petition that Hoye has 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, it is respectfully recommended the Petition be

summarily dismissed pre-service for lack of jurisdiction and a certificate of

appealability be denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases In The United States District Courts.

II. REPORT

A. Relevant Background

Hoye is attempting to again challenge the Judgment of Sentence imposed by

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at Criminal

No. CP-02-CR-0004077-2018. See Hoye v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.,

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-1015 (W.D. Pa). On June 8, 2026, the undersigned

dismissed Hoye’s petition in that case finding all claims raised were procedurally

defaulted and Hoye had failed to advance any argument as to why the Court should

excuse the procedural default of those claims. ECF Nos. 189 and 190. A certificate

of appealability was denied. Id. And a Judgment Order was entered that same day.

ECF No. 191.

The parties were advised any party wishing to appeal must file a Notice of

Appeal within 30 days, as provided in Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure. ECF No. 190 (citing Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure). To date, Hoye has not filed a notice of appeal. Rather, on July 7, 2026,

Hoye initiated this new habeas case by lodging the instant petition challenging the

same judgment of conviction he raised in Case No. 22-cv-1015. ECF No. 1. Hoye

also filed on that date a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP

Motion”), a motion to review discovery, transcripts, and a motion to prove

incompetent to stand trial. ECF Nos. 1, 4, and 5. Hoye was granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on July 13, 2026, ECF No. 2, and his petition was filed on

that date. ECF No. 3.

B. Discussion

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United

States District Courts, the district court must promptly review Section 2254

petitions and “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Rule 4. Upon Rule 4 review of Hoye’s habeas petition, it is recommended the

petition be dismissed because jurisdiction is lacking.

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 he previously challenged in federal habeas, the petitioner 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). Importantly, AEDPA's allocation of “gatekeeping” responsibilities to

the courts of appeals has divested district courts of jurisdiction over habeas

applications that are second or successive. See, e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147

(2007); Benchoff v. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812, 815 (3d Cir. 2005).

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

of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file a second or successive petition. Because

Hoye has not obtained the required authorization, the instant Petition constitutes

an unauthorized second or successive petition and this Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider it.1 Therefore, it is recommended the instant petition be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction.

C. Certificate of Appealability

AEDPA codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of

appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas

petition. It provides that “[a] certificate of appealability 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). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on

procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim,

a [certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of

the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Reasonable jurists would all agree Hoye 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. Accordingly, it is recommended a certificate of

appealability be denied.

1 This Report and Recommendation should not be read as a comment upon the

merits of any claim Hoye 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.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended the petition for a

writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed and a certificate of appealability be

denied. It is also recommended Hoye’s motion to review discovery, transcripts and

motion to prove incompetent to stand trial be denied as moot.

Hoye is permitted to file written specific Objections to this Report and

Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Hoye may file written

objections to this Report and Recommendation by August 4, 2026. Hoye is advised

that failure to file timely specific objections within this time frame “will waive the

right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011)

(quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983)). See also EEOC v. City

of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate

review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain

error).

Dated: July 14, 2026 BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown

Christopher B. Brown

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: NATHAN HOYE

704 Second Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(via U.S. First Class Mail)