Roderick Sims v. B.J. Solomon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RODERICK SIMS,

Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00601

v. (SAPORITO, J.)

B.J. SOLOMON,

Respondent.

ORDER Roderick Sims, incarcerated at SCI-Smithfield, petitions for a writ of pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1).1 “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 4; , 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.”).

1 Sims has filed a series of documents that he may have intended as amended or supplemental petitions. (Docs. 4, 6, 10). Although we have reviewed these documents, we refer to his initial filing (Doc. 1) as the operative petition. In 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, a jury

convicted Sims of burglary, second degree murder, and two counts of terroristic threats. Sims was sentenced to life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences. , No. CP-60-CR-

0000385-2008 (Union Cty. Ct. Com. Pl., Nov. 2, 2012). Sims has filed at least two federal habeas petitions challenging these convictions. His first petition, filed December 2, 2020, was

dismissed as untimely. , No. 1:20-CV-02246 (Doc. 58) (M.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2021). Sims’s request to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a certificate of appealability was denied.

, No. 21-3342, 2022 WL 2204162, at *1 (3d Cir. May 12, 2022). His second petition, filed on October 4, 2022, was dismissed as a successive petition untimely and improperly filed without

authorization from the Third Circuit. , No. 1:22-CV- 01550 (Doc. 13) (M.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2022). Sims has also filed six PCRA petitions in the Pennsylvania state courts, the most recent of which was

dismissed in August 2024 as untimely filed. , 343 A.3d 248, 2025 WL 1795022 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 30, 2025) (affirming dismissal). As the court explained in dismissing Sims’s last habeas petition, a

district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive petition for without approval from the appropriate court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); , 404 F.3d 812, 820-21

(3d Cir. 2005). “When a second or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed in a district court without the permission of a court of appeals, the district court’s only option is to dismiss the petition or

transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.” , 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). In this case, Sims’s petition and supporting documents essentially

seek to relitigate prior proceedings.2 He does not present new evidence of innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that would entitle him to file a successive habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Therefore, it is

not in the interest of justice to transfer the petition to the court of appeals. , 381 F. App’x 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2010) (in assessing transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, courts should consider

whether the petition would satisfy the gatekeeping requirement of

2 Sims’s arguments are difficult to follow, but he seeks to contest the state courts’ findings that he was not entitled to an exception to the timeliness requirement for PCRA petitions. (Docs. 1, 4, 6, 10). Section 2255).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Because jurists of reason would not debate dismissal of this

petition on procedural grounds, no certificate of appealability will issue. , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 3. Sims’s motions seeking status (Docs. 11, 12)

are DENIED as moot. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

Dated: May 1, 2026 JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. United States District Judge