Johnson v. McGinley

• Decision Date: 12 October 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:21-CV-01280
• Parties: ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al., Respondents.

Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-01280

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

October 12, 2022

BRANN J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Pro se PetitionerArmoni Masud Johnson(“Johnson”) initiated this action on July 8 2021, by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Respondents Superintendent Thomas McGinley and the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office(collectively “Respondents”).^[1](Doc. 1).Johnson is an inmate of the State Correction Institute at Coal Township (“SCI-Coal Township”) in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.(Doc. 1).For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition be dismissed.

I.Background and Procedural History

On October 11, 2013, Johnson was sentenced to 5 years, 6 months to 13 years of incarceration for violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1)(aggravated assault, serious bodily injury), and sentenced to 5 years, 6 months to 13 years of incarceration, to be served concurrently, for violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(4)(aggravated assault, deadly weapon).(Doc. 16, at 16).On April 28, 2016, Johnson was sentenced to 1 year, 6 months to 7 years, 6 months of incarceration, to be served consecutively, for violating 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30)(manufacture, deliver, or possession with intent, controlled substance), and sentenced to 1 year, 4 months to 7 years, 6 months of incarceration, to be served consecutively, for violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 751(criminal use of communication facility).(Doc 16, at 16).Johnson was initially denied parole on October 13, 2020,^[2] and upon reconsideration on July 8, 2021.^[3](Doc. 16, at 20, 23).

On July 21, 2021, Johnson initiated this action by filing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Respondents, challenging the Pennsylvania Parole Board's decision to deny parole on July 8, 2021.(Doc. 1).Johnson claims that the Board's decision to deny parole was an act of retaliation for Johnson's exercise of his appellate rights in relation to underlying criminal cases.(Doc. 1, at 5).Further, Johnson asserts that the decision to deny parole violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, as well as his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.(Doc. 1, at 6-8).On September 3, 2021, Johnson signed an electron form, stating that he chose to have the Court rule on his petition as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and understood that he may be forever barred from presenting in federal court any claim not presented in the petition.(Doc. 5).Respondents filed a response to the petition on December 1, 2021.(Doc. 16).Johnson filed a traverse on December 27, 2021.(Doc. 19).

On January 1, 2022, Johnson filed an “omnibus motion to compel justice,” claiming that he was found guilty without a trial and retaliated against “for attempting to exercise federally protected constitutional rights and the proof provided of institutional and systemic discrimination and modern day enslavement by the government.”(Doc. 20, at 1).Construing the motion as an additional petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Court denied Johnson's motion on March 2, 2022, because Johnson failed to proffer additional facts or request relief different from his original habeas petition.(Doc. 21, at 2).On March 11, 2022, Johnson filed the motion for immediate injunctive relief, as well as a brief in support.(Doc. 22;Doc. 23).On March 15, 2022, Johnson filed another motion for injunctive relief, as well as a supplement to the first motion for immediate injunctive relief.(Doc. 24;Doc. 25).On March 23, 2022, Johnson filed the motion for reconsideration, as well as a brief in support.(Doc. 26;Doc. 27).On May 6, 2022, the undersigned recommended that the Court deny Johnson's motions for immediate injunctive relief, which the Court adopted in full on June 10, 2022.(Doc. 32;Doc. 35).On July 20, 2022, Johnson filed a motion to “recall mandate and/or rule 60(b) motion to evaluate integrity of this court/request to be paroled via habeas corpus.”(Doc. 37).On September 7, 2022, Johnson filed a motion for injunctive relief and a motion to supplement the complaint by adding new respondents and a claim of conspiracy.^[4](Doc. 39;Doc. 40).

Having been fully briefed, this petition is now ripe for disposition.

II.Habeas Claims Presented

Johnson presents the following grounds for relief in his federal habeas petition:

1) That the Pennsylvania Parole Board's decision to deny parole was retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for the exercise of his appellate rights in his underlying criminal cases.(Doc. 1, at 5);

2) That the Pennsylvania Parole Board's decision to deny parole violates his right to equal protection and due process under the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendment.(Doc. 1, at 6);

3) That the Pennsylvania Parole Board's decision to deny parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.(Doc. 1, at 8); and

4) That the Pennsylvania Parole Board's decision to deny parole constitutes “selective and discriminatory enforcement of laws and rules in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”(Doc. 1, at 9).

5) Respondents conspired to deny Johnson access to the courts.(Doc. 40, at 1-2).

The undersigned addresses each of these grounds for relief in turn.

III.STANDARD OF LAW

Johnson brings his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which permits federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody.While a prisoner may properly challenge the “fact or duration” of his confinement through a § 2254 petition, seePreiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 498-99 (1973), the statute sets “several limits on the power of a federal court to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner.”Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181(2011).Further, “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68(1991);see alsoPulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41(1984)(“A federal court may not issue the writ on the basis of a perceived error of state law.”);Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 120 n.19(1982)(“If a state prisoner alleges no deprivation of a federal right, § 2254 is simply inapplicable.”).Rather, federal habeas review is limited to claims based “on the ground that [petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68.As such, a writ of habeas corpus is an “ ‘extraordinary remedy' reserved for defendants who were ‘grievously wronged' by the criminal proceedings.”SeeDunn v. Colleran, 247 F.3d 450, 468(3d Cir.2001)(quotingCalderon v. Coleman, 525 U.S. 141, 146(1998)).

The statutory text of § 2254 additionally requires that federal courts give the appropriate deference to the legal rulings and factual findings of state courts made during criminal proceedings, and provides in pertinent part:

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 be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;^[5] or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Thus, given these deferential standards of review, federal courts frequently decline invitations by habeas petitioners to disturb the considered views of state courts.SeeRice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39(2006);see alsoWarren v. Kyler, 422 F.3d 132, 139-40(3d Cir.2006);Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 228(3d Cir.2002).

Nonetheless, with respect to § 2254(d)(1), the Supreme Court defines “clearly established federal law” as “holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.”Williams, 529 U.S. at 412.Further, to warrant relief under § 2254(d)(1), a state court's “unreasonable application of those holdings must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice.”White v. Woodall, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702(2014).Regarding 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct” unless a petitioner can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the finding was erroneous.28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);see alsoSimmons v. Beard, 590 F.3d 223, 231(3d Cir.2009)(“Under the § 2254 standard, a district court is bound to presume that the state court's factual findings are correct, with the burden on the petitioner to rebut those findings by clear and convincing evidence.”).Moreover, habeas relief will not be granted pursuant to § 2254(d)(2) if a reasonable basis existed for the state court to make its factual finding.SeeBurt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18(2013).

IV.Discussion

A.Exhaustion and Procedural Default

Respondents submit that Johnson failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to the claims raised in his petition and, thus, his petition should be denied without a hearing.(Doc. 16, at 6).

Generally a federal district court may not consider the merits of a habeas petition unless the petitioner has “exhausted the remedies available” in state court...