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.

Bey v. Commonwealth

United States District Court, Third Circuit

November 22, 2013

AMIR MAJIKE BEY, Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARTIN C. CARLSON, Magistrate Judge.

I. Introduction

Federal habeas corpus petitioners must satisfy certain basic procedural thresholds. One of the statutory prerequisites to a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief in federal court is that the prisoner must "exhaust[] the remedies available in the courts of the State." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). In addition, these procedural prerequisites include a requirement that: "[a]claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application... that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

The instant case presents a model of both an unexhausted petition, and a second and successive petition, since the petitioner, Amir Majike Bey, for the second time seeks federal habeas corpus review of a case, which has never received any post-conviction review in the state courts.

In light of the fact that this is undeniably both an unexhausted federal habeas corpus petition and a successive petition, the question before this Court is how best to address what is currently a premature and procedurally flawed petition. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that this petition be dismissed.

II. Statement of Facts and of the Case

With respect to this petition, Majike Bey alleges that he is a Moorish American, national, aboriginal native, natural person, jus sanguinis and in propria persona sui juris. (Doc. 1) He also describes himself as a descendent of "the ancient Canaanite nation from the holy land of Canaan. What my ancient forefathers were, I am today without doubt or contradiction". (Id.) According to Majike Bey, he was prosecuted in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County in Commonwealth v. Majike Bey, No. CP-60-CR-181-2012.[1] Majike Bey's petition complains that he was prosecuted in this case despite not being indicted for commiting a crime, and alleges that this conduct violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well as various international treaties and conventions adopted by the United Nations. On the basis of these otherwise unadorned allegations Majike Bey seeks the dismissal of these two state criminal cases.

This is the second time Bey has leveled these allegations with this Court. In the first instance, Bey v. Commonwealth, 1:12-CV-1531, his petition was dismissed, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Moreover, notably absent from Majike Bey's latest petition is any recital that the petitioner has exhausted his state legal remedies with respect to these claims under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 9541, et seq. In fact, the docket in this state case affirmatively reveals that Majike Bey's federal habeas corpus petition presents us with the paradigm of an unexhausted federal habeas corpus petition, a petition whose claims have not been properly presented and preserved in the state courts.

Thus, with respect to the case of Commonwealth v. Majike Bey, No. CP-60-CR-181-2012, the docket reveals that the petitioner was convicted in this case in April of 2013. However, the docket also reflects that Majike Bey never appealed this conviction or filed for relief under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 9541, et seq. Instead, the docket simply shows that, following his conviction, Majike Bey has been the subject of probation revocation proceedings. Thus, Majike Bey has not fulfilled his legal duty to exhaust his state remedies before proceeding to federal court in this his second habeas corpus petition. Since the petitioner has not satisfied this threshold legal requirement prescribed by statute by exhausting his state remedies before proceeding into federal court, and has submitted an inappropriate second and successive petition, we submit that this petition is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

II. Discussion

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides in pertinent part: "If 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." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court.

In order to obtain federal habeas corpus relief, a state prisoner seeking to invoke the power of this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus must satisfy the standards prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which provides in part as follows:

(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not ...

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.