Baker v. Horn
Citation | 210 F.Supp.2d 592 |
Decision Date | 31 May 2002 |
Docket Number | Civ.A. No. 96-CV-0037. |
Parties | LEE BAKER v. HORN, et al. |
Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) |
Billy H. Nolas, Stuart B. Lev, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff.
Peter J. Gardner, Thomas W. Dolgenos, Donna G. Zucker, David Curtis Glebe, District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant.
On June 25, 1999, Petitioner Lee Baker ("Baker"), a state prisoner convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents include the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and the Superintendents of the State Correctional Institutions at Graterford and Rockview ("the Commonwealth"). On August 31, 2001, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss Baker's petition as untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), or in the alternative, a motion to dismiss all claims in the petition that were procedurally defaulted in state court and, therefore, unreviewable in federal court. For the reasons set forth below, I will deny the motion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................595 II. DOES AEDPA APPLY AT ALL? ...........................................603 III. AEDPA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS .....................................606 IV. RELATION BACK ......................................................609 V. STATUTORY TOLLING ..................................................610 A. "Properly Filed" ................................................610 B. "Pending" .......................................................619 VI. EQUITABLE TOLLING ..................................................620 VII. EXHAUSTION .........................................................625 VIII. PROCEDURAL DEFAULT .................................................630 A. "Unmistakable Terms" ............................................632 B. "Firmly Established and Regularly Followed" .....................635
The following is a chronology of the procedural history relevant to the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss1:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. Beard
...Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255, 263, 102 S.Ct. 2421, 72 L.Ed.2d 824 (1982). Indeed, as Judge Brody noted in Baker v. Horn, 210 F.Supp.2d 592, 636 (E.D.Pa.2002), the Third Circuit has held in more than one capital case, and with respect to more than one Pennsylvania procedural rule, that as......
-
Baker v. Horn
...the jury sentenced Baker to death and sentenced Mitchell and Joseph to life imprisonment. III. Review of Baker v. Horn, 210 F.Supp.2d 592 (E.D.Pa.2002) ("Baker v. Horn III") A. Procedural Baker's case rests before me following a unique and complicated procedural history. I recounted that hi......
-
Bridges v. Beard
...of exhaustion. “Whether or not the petition was untimely goes to the issue of procedural default, not exhaustion.” Baker v. Horn, 210 F.Supp.2d 592, 628 n. 32 (E.D.Pa.2002). Even an untimely petition gives the state courts a fair opportunity to pass on the petitioner's federal claims. Id. B......
-
Kindler v. Horn
...supra; Phillips v. Vaughn, 55 Fed.Appx. 100, 101 (3d Cir.2003); Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 431-422 (3d Cir.2000); Baker v. Horn, 210 F.Supp.2d 592, 620 (E.D.Pa.2002). In this case, the record reflects that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner's PCRA appli......