Gary Calhoun v. David Close, Superintendent; District Attorney of Cambria County; and Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Gary Calhoun’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the petition was second or successive and that Calhoun had not obtained authorization from the Third Circuit to file it, and it denied a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. The petition was a second or successive habeas petition because it challenged the same criminal conviction previously attacked by Calhoun, and the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Calhoun had not obtained authorization from the Third Circuit.
2. Because Calhoun filed no timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, the district court reviewed the recommendation for plain error and, finding none, adopted it.
3. A certificate of appealability was denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the district court had jurisdiction to proceed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Calhoun's § 2254 petition when the petition challenged a conviction previously attacked in an earlier habeas proceeding and Calhoun had not obtained authorization from the Third Circuit to file a second or successive petition.
2. What standard of review applied to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when Calhoun filed no timely objections.
3. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

dismissed