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.

Ferguson v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 9, 2014

ANTONIO D. FERGUSON, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al., Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LISA PUPO LENIHAN, Chief Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Relation Back to Amendments (ECF No. 27), which has been construed as a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), be denied for the reasons stated herein.

II. REPORT

A. Background

In March 2009, Petitioner, Antonio Ferguson, a state prisoner incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County for burglary and related charges. By Memorandum Order dated August 5, 2010, his petition and a certificate of appealability were denied. Currently pending before the Court is a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

B. Relevant Facts of the Crime

The relevant facts, as set forth in the undersigned's Report and Recommendation dated June 16, 2010, are as follows:

Petitioner was convicted of six residential burglaries and two attempted burglaries committed in November and December, 2003. Some of the burglaries occurred in the early morning hours after fresh snow had fallen and one set of distinctive footprints was left in the snow. The footprints were made by a type of lug boot bearing a distinctive flaw in the pattern on the left sole. The imprint of "Timberland" was distinctively visible on the footprint. Photographs were taken of footprints in undisturbed snow at various reported crime scenes. The police believed that the suspect in the above burglaries was wearing this type of boot.
The police noticed a pattern that one area of the city would be burglarized and the perpetrator would then move to another area opposite of the city. The police also determined the burglaries had the same modus operandi. The victims' back door would be smashed open and purses, wallets and other personal possessions in plain view would be quickly snatched.
On the evening of December 22, 2003, a burglary in progress at 2955 Poplar Street, Erie, Pennsylvania was reported. The police were informed the suspect was seen fleeing toward the east side of the city. As a result, police on the east side of the city were on the lookout for a suspect wearing lug boots. At about 1:00 p.m., Petitioner was seen walking on the street in the proximity to the reported burglary.
Petitioner was approached by a patrol officer who shined a flashlight on Petitioner and noticed his boots fit the description of Timberland boots. Another officer on the scene noticed the distinctive footprint left by Petitioner's boots in the snow. Petitioner was asked to show the bottom sole of his left foot. Petitioner complied and offered to remove his boots for the police inspection. The police determined the defect on the left sole appeared to match those seen in crime scene photographs.
Petitioner was transported to the Erie City Police Station where he gave oral statements implicating himself in the burglary at 2955 Poplar Street. Petitioner was shown a list of unsolved burglaries that were occurring throughout the city with the same modus operandi. Petitioner admitted to several of the burglaries on the list, but was unable to identify additional burglaries from the list of addresses. After these admissions, he was asked if a ride around the city and a view of the various properties would refresh his memory.
Petitioner agreed and rode with the police in their vehicle and pointed out additional homes he had burglarized. During this drive around the city, Petitioner implicated an alleged accomplice. Petitioner ...

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.