IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 23, 2012
JAMES C. PLATTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donetta W. Ambrose Senior Judge, U.S. District Court
OPINION AND ORDER
In this case, a jury convicted Defendant for violating federal tax laws. Presently before the Court is an "Amended 28 U.S.C. '2255," which Defendant appears to characterize as an amendment to his 2009 Section 2255 Motion. Attached as an exhibit thereto is a "Motion in Brief under 28 U.S.C. '2255." Defendant also refers to 28 U.S.C. '2244 for the proposition that he may now proffer newly discovered evidence.*fn1 The Government opposes the present Motion as an impermissible second or successive habeas petition.*fn2
The Motion that Defendant seeks to amend is no longer pending; thus, the amendment is moot and cannot be ruled on. However, because Defendant has appended a document styled as a Motion, I will address it as such, in the event that he intended to seek relief from this Court.
Following his sentencing, Defendant has mounted multiple challenges to his conviction and sentence -- by motion, brief, and, by his count, forty-nine "supplemental addendums." Initially, in this Court, he filed a Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255, on August 3, 2009, followed by several supplements. By Order dated January 8, 2010, I denied the Motion. When doing so, keeping in mind liberal standards applicable to pro se litigants and principles underlying Section 2255 and fundamental fairness, I carefully considered all of the Defendants' submissions. Following the January 8 Order, Defendant filed several additional Motions in this Court, as well as a notice of appeal and supplements thereto, raising all of his contentions of constitutional violations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied his requests, including one for rehearing. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari.
I empathize with Defendant's palpable sense of frustration. Nonetheless, it remains that neither liberal amendment rules nor the body of liberal rules applicable to pro se habeas petitioners grant a license to duplicate arguments or raise novel challenges, ad infinitum, without regard to statutory time limitations, proper avenues of procedure, judicial economy, and interests in the finality of judgments. Those limitations preclude Defendant from bringing the present Motion. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. ' 2255(f), (h). I have considered Defendant's present submission, and find that he may not mount another collateral attack on his sentence, and that he has not stated grounds entitling him to relief.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that to the extent Defendant's "Amended 2255" (Docket No. 139) is intended to seek relief, the same is denied.
BY THE COURT:
Donetta W. Ambrose