Bolling v. Morton ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    11-10-2005
    Bolling v. Morton
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-3505
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
    Recommended Citation
    "Bolling v. Morton" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 236.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/236
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    APS-30                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 05-3505
    STEVEN G. BOLLING,
    Appellant
    v.
    WILLIS E. MORTON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the District of New Jersey
    (D. N.J. Civ. No. 94-cv-01168)
    District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
    Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    October 27, 2005
    Before: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: November 10, 2005)
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant, Steven Bolling, appeals the District Court’s order denying his request
    that it intervene in ongoing state court proceedings. For essentially the same reasons
    given by the District Court, we will affirm.
    In October 1986, Bolling was charged in a thirty-eight count indictment as a result
    of an incident which occurred when he was hitchhiking. A motorist who was approached
    by Bolling for a ride became frightened and summoned police. When police arrived,
    Bolling stole a police car and a high-speed chase ensued. The chase ended when
    Bolling’s car, in the course of running a red light, hit the victims’ vehicle at a high rate of
    speed. The victims’ vehicle burst into flames immediately after impact, resulting in the
    death of four passengers. The remaining two victims were thrown from the vehicle and
    died as a result of their injuries. Bolling was convicted by a jury in April 1987 of six
    counts of felony murder resulting from burglary, six counts of aggravated manslaughter,
    six counts of death by auto, third degree burglary, three counts of aggravated assault on a
    police officer, three counts of resisting arrest, and theft of a means of conveyance.
    Bolling was sentenced to six concurrent life terms with a thirty-year term of parole
    ineligibility. The Superior Court, Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and
    conviction, and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied Bolling’s petition for certification.
    Bolling then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court challenging the
    trial court’s instructions on the “probable consequence” element of the state causation
    statute. The Superior Court, Appellate Division determined that Bolling’s contentions
    were without merit and affirmed the Law Division’s order denying Bolling’s petition for
    post-conviction relief. The New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently denied Bolling’s
    petition for certification. In March 1994, Bolling filed a petition for writ of habeas
    2
    corpus pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     in the underlying civil action raising this same faulty
    jury instruction claim. The District Court denied Bolling’s petition, and we denied him
    the certificate of probable cause required to appeal in an order dated February 24, 1995.
    See C.A. No. 94-5409.
    Bolling apparently returned to state court and filed a second petition for post-
    conviction relief in January 2003. The trial court denied his post-conviction petition in
    June of that same year. Appellant states that he then petitioned the New Jersey Superior
    Court, Appellate Division for leave to proceed as an indigent person and for the
    appointment of counsel – a request which was originally granted. However, Bolling
    asserts that the Appellate Division reversed its order after the New Jersey Public
    Defenders’ Office refused representation. Although Bolling was granted leave to appeal
    the order denying his request for appointed representation, the New Jersey Supreme Court
    denied his appeal on January 13, 2005, and he continues to litigate the proceedings in a
    pro se capacity.
    It is at this point, nearly ten years after the District Court denied his federal habeas
    corpus petition, that Bolling returns to federal court. On April 6, 2005, Bolling filed a
    motion seeking to have the District Court overrule the New Jersey Supreme Court’s
    decision refusing to appoint counsel to represent him in post-conviction proceedings. The
    District Court, finding no basis to intervene in an on-going matter before the New Jersey
    state courts, denied Bolling’s motion in an order entered on June 9, 2005. This timely
    3
    appeal followed.1
    We can find no error on the part of the District Court in denying Bolling’s motion.
    While appellant cites the District Court’s authority under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(1) to
    appoint counsel to represent a person unable to afford an attorney, that statutory provision
    governs proceedings in federal court. The District Court’s authority under § 1915(e)(1)
    does not confer upon it jurisdiction to intervene in on-going state court proceedings and
    to overturn the decision of a state supreme court regarding the appointment of post-
    conviction counsel.
    Accordingly, because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, see I.O.P.
    10.6, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
    1
    Although it initially appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely filed, the
    postmark on the envelope is dated June 29, 2005. Thus, Bolling’s notice of appeal had to
    have been delivered to prison officials for mailing within the 30 day period prescribed by
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    (1988).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3505

Judges: Sloviter, McKee, Fisher

Filed Date: 11/10/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024