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.

Addlespurger v. Allegheny County Courts

September 8, 2009

STEVEN ADDLESPURGER, PETITIONER,
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell, M.J.

Memorandum and Order

Steven Addlespurger has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he has been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631 as a successive petition.

In his petition, Addlespurger once again seeks to challenge his repeated contempt citations for non support imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The instant petition was executed on August 12, 2009. However, this is not the first federal challenge that the petitioner has directed at these proceedings. Addlespurger filed a federal habeas corpus petition in this Court at C.A. 08-1410 containing the same allegations. In the latter case the petition was dismissed on December 9, 2008 for lack of merit and no appeal was pursued.*fn1

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed into law on April 24, 1996, included several major reforms to the federal habeas corpus laws. As part of this habeas corpus reform, Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to prohibit district courts from entertaining claims presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application unless the appropriate federal court of appeals authorizes such filing. The relevant amended language provides as follows:

(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.

(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.

(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.

(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.

(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

Because it would appear that this Court cannot consider the instant petition without leave of the Court of Appeals, it will transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2009, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Memorandum, the petition of Steven Addlespurger is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third ...


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.