John Sutton v. ( 2020 )

BLD-099 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-2416
___________
In re: JOHN D. SUTTON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00082)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 23, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed January 28, 2020)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
John D. Sutton is a Pennsylvania inmate serving 18 to 40 years of imprisonment
after a jury in 2003 convicted him of third-degree murder. Sutton’s efforts in state court
to invalidate his conviction have all failed. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sutton, No. 818
WDA 2013, 2013 WL 11255664 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). His efforts in the District Court
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
have fared no better; his first habeas petition was dismissed as untimely, and his second
such petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was impermissibly second
or successive. See Sutton v. Commonwealth, DC Civ. No. 17-cv-00109, 2018 WL
4599825 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2018).
Sutton has now filed a mandamus petition in this Court. Complaining that he “has
repeatedly been denied the opportunity to present his Appeals, Petitions and Motions in
the lower courts due to time constraints and procedural obstacles,” Pet. at 1, Sutton
requests an order authorizing the filing of a new habeas petition to challenge his
conviction. But that is not a permissible use of mandamus; Sutton must instead comply
with the procedures for filing second or successive habeas petitions, set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244. See Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 766 F.3d 1271, 1285 (11th Cir.
2014); see also Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005); cf. In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997) (explaining that inmate may not use habeas petition
under § 2241 simply because he cannot meet AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements for
second or successive habeas petitions).1 Accordingly, Sutton’s mandamus petition is
denied.2
1
Sutton does not appear to have ever appealed to this Court any of the adverse decisions
of the District Court. “It is, of course, well settled, that the writ [of mandamus] is not to
be used as a substitute for appeal[.]” Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110 (1964).
2
Insofar as Sutton might be requesting an order authorizing a post-conviction filing in
state court, the mandamus petition would still be denied. Sutton presents no reason to
2
disregard the general rule that federal courts “may not issue a writ of mandamus to
compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it.” In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981).
3