Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hudson v. Martinez

September 2, 2008

HARVEY J. HUDSON, PETITIONER
v.
WARDEN R. MARTINEZ, RESPONDENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Rambo

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Harvey J. Hudson, an inmate currently confined at the Allenwood United States Penitentiary ("USP-Allenwood") in White Deer, Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2241.

For the reasons set forth below, Hudson's petition will be dismissed as a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).

I. Background

On March 23, 1988, Hudson was sentenced by the District of Columbia Superior Court to a term of 112 years to life for nine counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor child, one count of sodomy, six counts of carnal knowledge, one count of kidnapping, and one count of obstruction of justice. (See Doc. 10-11 at 3-4.) Hudson was committed to the custody of the BOP on March 29, 2001. (See id.)

Hudson has filed four previous petitions with this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Hudson v. Pugh, Civil No. 1:CV-02-2259; Hudson v. Pugh, Civil No. 1:CV-03-0337; Hudson v. Pugh, Civil No. 1:CV-05-0492; Hudson v. Williamson, Civil No. 1:CV-05-2097.

In addition, Hudson filed 16 post-trial motions in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, five civil rights complaints, one mandamus petition, and two habeas petitions in the United States District Court and/or Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Hudson v. Pugh, Civ. No. 1:CV-05-0492, 2005 WL 1155048 at *1.

Hudson filed the instant petition on March 24, 2008. (Doc. 1.) He raised claims concerning his classification as a maximum security prisoner and the calculation of his sentence by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). By order dated May 1, 2008, this court dismissed the classification claim and construed the remaining claim challenging the calculation of Hudson's sentence as having been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Doc. 7.) On the same date, in accordance with United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), and Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), the court issued a formal notice to Hudson that he could either have his petition ruled on as filed, or withdraw his petition and file one all-inclusive § 2254 petition within the one-year statutory period prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). (Doc. 8.)

Hudson did not file a notice of election within the proscribed time, and therefore, on June 23, 2008, Respondent was directed to file an answer to the petition within twenty (20) days. (Doc. 9.) On July 14, 2008, Respondent filed an answer (Doc. 10-1) and exhibits (Doc. 10-11). Hudson filed his reply on July 18, 2008. (Doc. 11). Therefore, the petition is ripe for review.

II. Discussion

The pertinent authority for dismissing successive habeas corpus petitions is found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) and Rule 9*fn1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977). Prior to the 1996 amendments, § 2244 authorized dismissal of a successive habeas petition "that presented no new ground not heretofore presented and determined." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 483 (1991). Section 2244 provided:

(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for writ of habeas corpus and the petition presents no new ground not heretofore presented and determined, and the judge or court is satisfied that the ends of justice will not be served by such inquiry.

The Supreme Court in McCleskey expanded § 2244 to also preclude a person from raising a new claim in a subsequent habeas petition that he could have raised in his first habeas petition:

Our recent decisions confirm that a petitioner can abuse the writ by raising a claim in a subsequent petition that he could have raised in his first, regardless of whether the failure to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.