GOHLMAN v. SOLIWODA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT GOHLMAN,
Petitioner
V.
STEVEN SOLIWODA, et al. ,
Respondents
ERIE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:25-CV-00330-SPB-RAL
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States District Judge
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Report and Recommendation on Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus
ECFNo. 2
MAGISTRATE JUDGE' S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner Robert Gohlman's prose Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 2] be DISMISSED because the petition is second or successive and
Petitioner did not receive an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
authorizing this Court to consider it, as required by 28 U.S .C. § 2244(b). It is further recommended
that a Certificate of Appealability be denied.
II. 	Report
A. Background
On March 5, 2020, Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of 8 to 48 months'
incarceration after pleading guilty to two counts of corruption of minors in the Court of Common
Pleas of Crawford County at Case Number CP-20-CR-000438-2019. See Gahlman v. Oliver, Case
Case 1:25-cv-00330-SPB-RAL Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 4

Number 1:23-CV-00050-RAL (W.D. Pa. 2023), ECF No. 23 at p. 1. On March 6, 2023, Petitioner
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court challenging
that conviction and sentence. See id. at ECF No. 1. 	On May 5, 2025, the Court dismissed his
petition as untimely. Id. at ECF No. 23. Petitioner did not appeal.
On November 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 	See ECF No. 2-2. 	As with his prior petition, Petitioner again
sought to challenge the judgment of sentence at criminal docket number CP-20-CR-000438-2019.
See ECF No. 2. 	The following day, the Court of Appeals entered an order transferring Petitioner' s
§ 2254 Petition to this Court and noting that, "[a]s this appears to be a successive application for
collateral review, Gohlman must obtain an order from the Third Circuit to allow its filing." ECF
No. 1. Because Gohlman has not done so, his petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
as an unauthorized second or successive petition. 1
B. 	Analysis
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b ), mandates that before a state prisoner may file a second or successive habeas corpus
petition challenging a judgment of sentence that he previously challenged in a federal habeas
action, he must first obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district
court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See, e.g., Magwood v. Patterson, 561
U.S. 320 (2010); United States v. Winkelman , 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014). Once a petitioner
moves for authorization to file a second or successive petition, a three-judge panel of the Court of
Appeals must decide within thirty days whether there is a prima facie showing that the application
satisfies § 2244's substantive requirements, set forth in § 2244(b)(2). 	See U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
1 This matter has been assigned to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Magistrate
Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
2
Case 1:25-cv-00330-SPB-RAL Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4

AEDPA's allocation of "gatekeeping" responsibilities to the Courts of Appeals divests district
courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions that are second or successive filings until the
appropriate Court of Appeals authorizes the filing. 	See, e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147
(2007).
In the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner is challenging the same
Crawford County judgment of sentence that he challenged in his prior § 2254 petition at docket
1:23-CV-00050-RAL. 	A review of the Court of Appeals' docket establishes that Petitioner has
not sought or received authorization to pursue a second or successive petition. Accordingly, this
Court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2
III. 	Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability should be issued only when a petitioner has made a substantial
showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)(2). Where the district court has
rejected a constitutional claim on its merits, "[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong."
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000). When the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner 's underlying constitutional claim, "a [certificate
of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling." Id. 	Here, the Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether
2 This recommendation is without prejudice to Petitioner ' s ability to seek authorization to file a second or successive
petition from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If the Court of Appeals grants his application , he can then
file another habea s action in this Court at a ne w docket number.
3
Case 1:25-cv-00330-SPB-RAL Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 4

each of Petitioner's claims should be denied for the reasons given herein. Accordingly, a
certificate of appealability should be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's petition for
writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. It is further recommended that a certificate of appealability
be denied and that the Clerk be directed to mark this case closed.
V. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l ) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties may seek
review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within
fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the
objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto.
See Fed. R. Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate
rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir.2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d
187 (3d Cir. 2007).
Dated this 25th day of November, 2025.
�DBY:
-�f\�--<Chief United States Magistrate Judge
4
Case 1:25-cv-00330-SPB-RAL Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 4