United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
ORDER RE: ECF NO. 32
Maureen P. Kelly Chief Magistrate Judge
LeMarie Clark ("Petitioner") is a state prisoner,
proceeding pro se, who was convicted of two counts of
Criminal Conspiracy to commit homicide, five counts of
Statutory Sexual Assault and five counts of Involuntary
Deviate Sexual Intercourse, involving her scheme to
manipulate a juvenile boy, age 15, to kill Petitioner's
husband. Petitioner was sentenced to 12 to 30 years of
incarceration. She has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (the "Petition"). By means of the
Petition, she seeks to challenge, not her conviction and
sentence, but the most recent denial of parole by the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Respondents filed
an Answer, denying that she was entitled to any relief. ECF
recently filed what the Clerk's Office described as
"Proposed Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus." ECF No. 32. We note that in the original
Petition, Petitioner solely attacked the denial of parole. In
the Proposed Amended Petition, she seeks to attack her
that Respondents have filed their Answer, Petitioner may not
file an Amended Petition without leave of Court. As one Court
has cogently explained: "Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure . . . applies to habeas corpus petitions,
as well as other pleadings. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.
644, 655, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 2569, 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005);
see also In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.
2004) ('Rule 15(a) applies to habeas corpus actions with
the same force that it applies to garden-variety civil
cases. (citations omitted)). Rule 15(a) provides
that after an answer is filed, '[a] party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's consent or the
court's leave....' Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)."
Miranda v. Horel, 549 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1201 (CD. Cal.
2008) (some internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we
will treat the Proposed Amended Petition as a Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Petition and, for the following
reasons, deny it.
extent that Petitioner seeks to attack her conviction, we
note that Petitioner's conviction appears to have become
final 90 days after February 17, 2004, the date whereon the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied her Petition for Allowance
of Appeal in the course of her direct appeal.' Petitioner
did not file any PCRA Petition thereafter. Accordingly, any
attack on her conviction would be clearly time-barred now in
light of the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations. Hence,
amendment to include an attack on her conviction would be
futile. Furthermore, we do not we find any viable excuse to
overcome the AEDPA statute of limitations for the filing of
her habeas petition to attack her underlying conviction,
especially given her plea of nolo contendere to her charges.
also attacks the Pennsylvania one-year statute of limitations
on the filing of PCRA petitions. ECF No. 32 ¶ 2.
However, errors concerning any PCRA statutes or proceedings
are simply not cognizable in these Section 2254 proceedings.
Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir.
1998) ("The federal role in reviewing an application for
habeas corpus is limited to evaluating what occurred in the
state or federal proceedings that actually led to the
petitioner's conviction; what occurred in the
petitioner's collateral proceeding does not enter into
the habeas calculation. . . . Federal habeas power is
'limited ... to a determination of whether there has been
an improper detention by virtue of the state court
judgment.'"); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387
F.3d 210, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) ("alleged errors in
collateral proceedings ... are not a proper basis for habeas
relief from the original conviction.").
extent that Petitioner seeks to add any claims against the
Board, we find that there is undue delay in bringing such
claims, given that she initiated these habeas proceedings in
April 2016, and she has offered no justification for such
delay and hence, deny leave to amend based thereon. Wadis
v. Norristown State Hosp., 617 Fed.Appx. 133, 135 (3d
Cir. 2015) ("leave to amend may be denied for 'undue
delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, or
reasons set forth herein, the Proposed Amended Petition,
treated as, a Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition is
 The docket of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in Petitioner's Petition for Allowance of Appeal is
08堂ﻛ䎷 (date last visited 5/31 /2018).
 The docket of Petitioner's Court
of Common Pleas proceedings are available at:
https://ujsporial.pac()iirts.us/docketsheets/C'PReport.ashx?docketNumber=::CP-l1-CR-0000187-2000 (site ...