Morales v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Morales v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EDGARDO QUIROS-MORALES, : : Civil No. 3:18-CV-1051 Petitioner, : : (JUDGE MARIANI) V. : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) UNITED STATES, : Respondent. :

ORDER AND NOW, THIS __/ Z, / / DAY OF JANUARY 2020, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 5) and Petitioner's objections thereto (Doc. 6) with which he requests the Court to extend the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama,

567 U.S. 460

(2012) (mandatory life imprisonment without parole for individuals who were juveniles at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment), to apply to an offender like himself who was nineteen years old when he committed the offense at issue (Doc. 6 at 3), because the Court declines the requested extension,’ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1 This Court and others have specifically addressed the extension of Miller to individuals who were nineteen years of age and over when the crime of conviction was committed, and courts consistently reject the requested extension. See, e.g., Prather v. Gilmore, Civ. A. No. 1.18-CV-973,

2019 WL 247397

, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 1, 2019) (“district courts within the Third Circuit have routinely rejected arguments that Miller granted any new constitutional protections to individuals eighteen (18) years of age or older... . Based upon the plain language employed by the Supreme Court in Miller, no new constitutional right was created that would be applicable to [the petitioner], who was nineteen (19) years of age at the time of his crime.” (citing Pritchard v. Wetzel, Civ. A. No. 13-5406,

2014 WL 199907

, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2014)).

1. The R&R (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein; 2. Petitioner's objections to the R&R (Doc. 6) are OVERRULED; 3. The Petition filed pursuant

28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Doc. 1) is DENIED; 4. Petitioner’s Motion for Status Update (Doc. 7) is DEEMED MOOT; 5. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. SN cate Wee Robert D~Mariani United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown