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.

William S. Cooper v. Debra Sauers

August 21, 2012

WILLIAM S. COOPER, PETITIONER,
v.
DEBRA SAUERS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin

Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

MEMORANDUM ORDER SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Petitioner William S. Cooper's Void Judgment Motion [ECF No. 18], which shall be construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1 [ECF No. 18]. For the reasons that follow, Cooper's motion is denied.

I.

A. Relevant Background

Cooper is a state prisoner currently confined in the State Correctional Institution Forest.

On or around April 3, 2011, he filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged a judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County on April 25, 2006. He raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

This case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. In their Answer [ECF No. 10], Respondents contended that the petition should be denied as untimely under the statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). AEDPA establishes a one-year limitations period for state prisoners to file for federal habeas relief, which "run[s] from the latest of" four specified dates. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This case concerns the first of those dates: "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." § 2244(d)(1)(A). Cooper filed a Reply [ECF No. 12], in which he contended that the petition was timely because he filed it within one year of the date that his PCRA proceeding concluded.

On June 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [ECF No. 13], in which she recommended that Cooper's petition be denied as untimely. The Magistrate Judge explained that Cooper's judgment of sentence became final on or around October 12, 2007;*fn2 therefore, the one-year period for filing his federal habeas petition began to run on that date. When he filed his first PCRA motion on August 31, 2008, that motion statutorily tolled the limitations period. § 2244(d)(2) ("The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection."). By that date, approximately 324 days already had expired from the limitation period. Thus, when his first PCRA proceedings finished, Cooper would have 41 days to file a timely habeas petition in federal court.

The PCRA Court denied Cooper relief in February of 2009, and he filed an appeal with the Superior Court. On April 12, 2010, the Superior Court filed a Memorandum in which it affirmed the PCRA Court's decision. Cooper did not file a PAA with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Accordingly, his PCRA proceeding concluded on or around May 12, 2010, the date upon which the time to file a PAA expired. See, e.g., Swartz, 204 F.3d at 419-20. See also Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007). After that date, AEDPA's limitations period began to run again, and Cooper, having 41 days remaining before the statute of limitations expired, had until on or around June 22, 2010, to file a timely federal habeas petition with this Court. The Magistrate Judge explained that because he did not initiate proceedings with this Court until April 3, 2011, his petition was untimely by more than nine months.

In his Objections [ECF Nos. 14-16] to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, Cooper contended that he did not receive notification that the Superior Court had denied his PCRA appeal until September 20, 2010. Even if the Court assumed that that were true and tolled the limitations period through that date, Cooper's petition was still untimely by more than six months. Accordingly, on July 2, 2012, after de novo review of the documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation, Cooper's Objections and amendments thereto, we issued a Memorandum Order in which we adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and closed this case.

On July 23, 2012, Cooper filed the pending Void Judgment Motion in which he requests that the Court reopen this case, conduct an evidentiary hearing, reconsider our determination that his petition is untimely, review his claims on the merits, and grant him habeas relief.

II.

The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for a party to meet. The Third Circuit ...


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.