Moss v. Deblaso

• Decision Date: 14 July 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-106
• Parties: CRAIG MOSS, Petitioner v. SUPERINTENDENT DEBALSO, et al., Respondents
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

CRAIG MOSS, Petitioner v. SUPERINTENDENT DEBALSO, et al., Respondents

No. 1:19-cv-106

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 14, 2021

MEMORANDUM

Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

Presently before the Court is pro se Petitioner Craig Moss (“Petitioner”)'s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 11.) Respondents filed a response addressing the merits of the § 2254 petition on June 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 30.) Petitioner's § 2254 petition is, therefore, ripe for disposition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On January 15, 2017, in York County, Pennsylvania, Petitioner was arrested and charged with: (1) terroristic threats with the intent to terrorize another; (2) possession of an instrument of crime; (3) simple assault; (4) public drunkenness; (5) disorderly conduct engaging in fighting; and (6) three (3) counts of harassment. See Commonwealth v Moss, Docket No. CP-67-CR-0001471-2017 (York Cty C.C.P.). A mistrial was declared on March 8, 2018. Id. Following retrial on March 18, 2018, Petitioner was found guilty of possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, and two (2) counts of harassment. Id. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania set forth the background of the case as follows:

On March 16, 2017, the Commonwealth charged [Petitioner] by way of a criminal information with terroristic threats, [possession of an instrument of crime], simple assault, public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and three counts of harassment. The charges arose out of an incident that took place on January 14-15, 2017, at Kiro's bar. At trial, although there were minor inconsistencies, the Commonwealth witnesses testified consistently about the events of the evening.

That night, Breanne Spangler, her fiance Daniel Leiphart, and a group of their friends, who included Brittany Graves, Bridget James, and Emily and Devon Wallick, were at Kiro's to celebrate its last night in business. [Petitioner] and his wife, Tara Moss, were also present but were not part of Spangler's group.

At some point during the event, [Petitioner] and Tara Moss left. [Petitioner] returned alone a few minutes later and began to behave in an increasingly belligerent and drunken fashion. He started to accost and grope some of the women in Spangler's group, ignoring their requests to stop.

When Leiphart became aware of the problem, he and [Petitioner] engaged in a verbal dispute, which ended when Leiphart punched [Petitioner] on the chin. The bar's owner, Ronald Weagley, now aware of the complaints about [Petitioner's] behavior, escorted him off the premises.

The group of friends remained in the bar. Immediately prior to closing, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Tara Moss telephoned Weagley and informed him [Petitioner] had armed himself with knives and was returning to the bar. Weagley locked the front door of the bar, called 911 and told the patrons not to leave.

Despite this, Leiphart and several others exited the bar through the side emergency exit. Although friends kept Leiphart and [Petitioner] separated, a quarrel ensued in the parking lot next to Kiro's and continued into a nearby alley.

[Petitioner] brandished a knife, swinging it from side to side while taunting the unarmed Leiphart. Spangler inserted herself between [Petitioner] and Leiphart, grabbed the knife-blade, and attempted to deescalate the conflict. [Petitioner] repeatedly told her he did not want to hurt her but wanted to hurt Leiphart. Spangler pushed against [Petitioner] backing him away from Leiphart while [Petitioner] continued to swing the knife and state that he wanted to hurt Leiphart.

Other bar patrons backed Leiphart away from [Petitioner]. [Petitioner] did not leave the scene until he heard police sirens, at which point he allowed Spangler to grab the knife. When police apprehended the fleeing [Petitioner], they heard one knife fall off him, which they recovered under his body, and found two other knives on his person. The police located several other knives in the area where the altercation occurred.

Commonwealth v. Moss, No. 1533 MDA 2018, 2020 WL 618580, at *1-2 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2010). On April 9, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to one (1) year minus one (1) day to two (2) years minus two (2) days of incarceration, with credit for time served. Moss, Docket No. CP-67-CR-0001471-2017. Petitioner subsequently filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. Id. On September 12, 2018, Petitioner filed his notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Id.

On January 17, 2019, while his direct appeal was still pending, Petitioner filed his initial § 2254 petition (Doc. No. 1) and a motion for a temporary stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 2) with this Court. In a Report and Recommendation entered on February 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended that Petitioner's motion for a stay and abeyance be denied and that his § 2254 petition be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner's right to refile his petition once he exhausted his state court remedies. (Doc. No. 6.) Petitioner filed timely objections, asserting that he met the three (3) requirements for a stay and abeyance set forth in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2009). (Doc. No. 7.) Petitioner argued that if the Court did not stay the action, he would “never be able to file a habeas corpus to challenge the violations of his federal [constitutional] rights as he is no longer in custody for this conviction.” (Id. at 2.) In a Memorandum and Order entered on March 21, 2019, the Court sustained Petitioner's objections, rejected the Report and Recommendation, granted Petitioner's motion for a stay and abeyance, and stayed the above-captioned case pending Petitioner's exhaustion of his available state court remedies. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) The Court directed Petitioner to notify the Court of such within thirty (30) days from the time of final denial and request that the stay be vacated. (Doc. No. 9.)

On February 10, 2020, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Petitioner's judgment of sentence. See Moss, 2020 WL 618580, at *1. On February 19, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed (Doc. No. 10) and an amended § 2254 petition (Doc. No. 11). Those filings indicated that Petitioner was no longer incarcerated. In an Order dated February 25, 2020, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to proceed and lifted the stay. (Doc. No. 12.) In an administrative Order dated that same day, the Court advised Petitioner of the limitations on filing future § 2254 petitions and directed him to complete the enclosed Notice of Election and return it to the Court within forty-five (45) days. (Doc. No. 13.) Petitioner did not return the Notice of Election. Accordingly, on April 13, 2020, the Court directed Respondents to file an answer, motion, or other response to the amended § 2254 petition within twenty (20) days. (Doc. No. 14.)

On April 23, 2020, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, as moot. (Doc. No. 16.) Respondents asserted that the Court lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner's York County sentence expired on November 11, 2018, and, therefore, he was not in custody for purposes of that conviction when he filed his initial § 2254 petition. (Id. at 2-3.) In support, Respondents attached a copy of a York County Pre-Parole Investigation and Order indicating that Petitioner received 512 days of credit toward his sentence and that the maximum date of his sentence was November 11, 2018. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 1.) Respondents noted that Petitioner “was in custody due to his state parole violation which resulted from his conviction in the instant case at the time his [original § 2254 petition] was filed.” (Doc. No. 16 at 3.) They asserted, however, that “even if this Court were to liberally construe [Petitioner's] Petition as an attack on his subsequently received parole revocation, such challenge was rendered moot upon [Petitioner's] completion of the parole violation sentence and release from incarceration.” (Id. at 3-4.) Respondents also filed a motion “to temporarily stay the deadline to file a full and complete response to the merits of [Petitioner's] Petition” pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 17.) Petitioner did not file a response to Respondents' motions. Accordingly, in a Memorandum and Order dated May 18, 2020, the Court granted Respondents' motion to dismiss and dismissed Petitioner's original § 2254 petition and amended § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.)

On January 21, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 20.) Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to relief because his York County sentence expired on January 13, 2019 and Respondents erroneously provided a document indicating otherwise to the Court. (Id. at 3-6.) Petitioner asked that the Court reinstate his § 2254 petition, sanction Respondents, and forward the matter to the Commonwealth's disciplinary board. (Id. at 6.) In an Order dated that same day, the Court directed Respondents to file a response to the Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. No. 23.) After receiving an extension of time (Doc Nos. 24, 25), Respondents filed their response on April 5, 2021, agreeing that Petitioner had been in custody on the challenged sentence when he filed his initial § 2254 petition (Doc. No. 26). In an Order dated April 8, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to the extent he sought relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). (Doc. No. 27.) The Court vacated its May 18, 2020 Memorandum and Order dismissing Petitioner's § 2254 petitions for lack of jurisdiction and directed Respondents to file a response addressing the merits of Petitioner's amended § 2254 ...