United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
ERIC X. RAMBERT, Petitioner,
LAWRENCE KRASNER, PHILLY D.A., GEORGE MURPHY, A.D.A. PHILLY, and ANTHONY V. POMERANZ, A.D.A, Respondents.
G. SMITH, J.
NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2019, after considering:
(1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus purportedly under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by the pro se
petitioner, Eric X. Rambert (“Rambert”) (Doc. No.
2); (2) Rambert's amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus (Doc. No. 7); (3) Rambert's “Amended
Memorandum of Law in Support of [His] Amended Petition for
the Pending Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Doc. No. 8); the report and recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski (Doc. No.
13); and Rambert's timely objections to the report and
recommendation (Doc. No. 14); accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to
REMOVE this action from civil suspense and
RETURN it to the court's active docket;
2. Rambert's objections to the report and recommendation
(Doc. No. 14) are OVERRULED;
3. The Honorable Lynne A. Sitarski's report and
recommendation (Doc. No. 13) is APPROVED and
4. Rambert's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No.
2), as amended and supplemented by his amended petition and
memorandum of law (Doc. Nos. 7, 8) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction;
5. Rambert has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right and is therefore not entitled to a
certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
6. The clerk of court shall mark this case as
 The court conducts a de novo review
and determination of the portions of the report and
recommendation by the magistrate judge to which there are
objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of
the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”); see also
E.D. Pa. Loc. R. Civ. P. 72.1(IV)(b) (providing requirements
for filing objections to magistrate judge's proposed
findings, recommendations or report).
As noted by Judge Sitarski in her report, after
Rambert pleaded guilty to Rape, Burglary, and Robbery in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in November
1983, the Honorable James D. McCrudden, now deceased,
sentenced him to a period of incarceration for a minimum of
ten years to a maximum of 25 years. See R&R at 1-2; see
also Commonwealth v. Rambert, No. 3634 EDA 2017, 2018 WL
4402132, at *1 (Pa. Super. Sept. 17, 2018) (describing
Rambert's plea and sentence); Docket, Commonwealth v.
Rambert, No. CP-51-CR-625331-1983 (Phila. Ct. Com. Pl.),
(last visited July 19, 2019). While incarcerated under this
sentence, a jury sitting in the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas found him guilty of Assault by a Prisoner, Riot,
and Conspiracy. See R&R at 2; see also Commonwealth
v. Rambert, No. 320 WDA 2013, 2013 WL 11250338, at *1
(Pa. Super. Nov. 12, 2013) (describing verdict); Docket,
Commonwealth v. Rambert, No. CP-02-CR-2765-1987
(Allegheny Ct. Com. Pl.), available at:
(last visited July 19, 2019). The Honorable Robert E. Dauer,
now deceased, sentenced Rambert to a period of incarceration
for a minimum of six years to a maximum of 25 years in
November 1987. See R&R at 2; Rambert, 2013 WL 11250338,
at *1 (describing sentence). This sentence was to run
consecutive to the sentence imposed in Philadelphia County.
See R&R at 2; see also Pet'r's Opp. to R&R at
1, Doc. No. 14 (“While serving the illegal sentence
[imposed in Philadelphia County] the Petitioner was found
guilty of assault by Prisoner, riot and criminal conspiracy
and sentenced to a 6-25 year term of imprisonment, to run
consecutively with the prior sentence.”).
Judge Sitarski noted that Rambert is contending in his
habeas petition that he completed his term of imprisonment
and is currently unlawfully detained. See R&R at 2. Judge
Sitarski also explained that Rambert has filed (1) many
challenges to the calculation of his sentence in federal
court and multiple habeas petitions. See Id. (citing
cases). He also appears to have filed numerous petitions in
the state courts under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction
Relief Act (“PCRA”). See Commonwealth v. Rambert,
No. 1395 WDA 2018, 2019 WL 1513167, at *1 (Pa. Super. Apr. 5,
2019) (stating that Rambert had filed eleven PCRA petitions
in No. CP-02-CR-2765-1987); Rambert, 2018 WL 4402132, at *1
(stating that Rambert had filed ten PCRA petitions in No.
Although Rambert purported to assert the instant
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Doc. No. 2, Judge
Sitarski explained that because he was challenging the
execution of his sentence, the court must consider it under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. See R&R at 1, n.1 (citing
Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001)).
Judge Sitarski also pointed out that because Rambert had
already filed at least five habeas petitions challenging the
aggregation of his sentences, and at least four petitions
where he challenged his underlying conviction, “the
petition is subject to the authorization requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b).” Id. at 3. As Rambert
did not receive prior approval from ...