KROLL v. EVANS

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN L. KROLL, 	:
Petitioner 	:
v. 	: Case No. 3:25-cv-410-KAP
SUPERINTENDENT RANDY EVANS, 	:
S.C.I. GREENE, 	:
Respondent 	:
Report and Recommendation
Recommendation
I 	recommend 	that 	petitioner 	Kroll’s 	second 	or 	successive 	habeas 	petition
challenging his continued imprisonment as a result of his sentence in Commonwealth v.
Kroll, CP-05-CR-90-2011 (C.P. Bedford) be dismissed because it is unauthorized by the
Court of Appeals. No certificate of appealability should be issued. The Clerk shall change
the name of the respondent on the docket to reflect the correct respondent (the warden
of the institution where petitioner is in custody) and shall add the Office of the Attorney
General of Pennsylvania as counsel for the respondent for notice purposes only, with no
duty to respond.
Report
This Court has had two previous habeas petitions before it from Kroll that are
relevant to this matter. In Kroll v. Giroux, Case No. 3:14-cv-25-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa.
February 28, 2014), Kroll filed a petition attacking Commonwealth v. Kroll, CP-05-CR-
90-2011 (C.P. Bedford), then withdrew it to exhaust his state court remedies. 	In 2017,
after proceedings under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act were completed, Kroll
filed a habeas petition in Kroll v. Lane, Case No. 3:17-cv-60-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa. February
5, 2020), again attacking the conviction and sentence in Commonwealth v. Kroll, CP-05-
CR-90-2011 (C.P. Bedford). Judge Gibson denied that petition on the merits, and there
was no appeal.
In November 2025, Kroll filed an untitled handwritten pleading in the Court of
Appeals 	that 	named 	himself 	as 	a 	petitioner 	and 	named 	the 	Commonwealth 	of
Pennsylvania as “State of Pennsylvania, Defendant’s.” The pleading was docketed as a
Petition sub nom. Kroll v. State of Pennsylvania, No. 25-3161 (3d Cir.) and sent here by
the Clerk of the Court of Appeals on November 13, 2025. The Clerk noted:
This Court’s authorization may be required before the district court can
consider a second or successive habeas petition or motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Case 3:25-cv-00410-NBF-KAP Document 5 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 3

2
See 28 U.S.C.§§ 2244(b)(3) & 2255(h). This transfer does not constitute such an
authorization.
Under 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(3)(A), a habeas petitioner cannot proceed with a second or
successive habeas petition in the District Court without prior authorization from the
Court of Appeals. This habeas petition is a second or successive one because it challenges
Kroll’s continued imprisonment as a result of his sentence in Commonwealth v. Kroll, CP-
05-CR-90-2011 (C.P. Bedford), which he previously challenged in a habeas corpus
petition decided on the merits.
The petition contains six paragraphs. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are an abridged
version of the facts and legal claims previously presented in Kroll v. Lane, Case No. 3:17-
cv-60-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa. February 5, 2020). Kroll does not claim that his present
Petition relies on a new rule of constitutional law under 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(2)(A) or new
facts as described 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(2)(B), and upon review it does not. The Petition
was filed more than five years after the denial of his previous petition and without new
facts is also untimely. Paragraphs 5 and 6 complain about Kroll’s conditions of
confinement in custody generally and at S.C.I. Greene in August 2025 in particular, but
any federal claims concerning conditions of confinement can be brought in a civil
complaint subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and cannot be the basis of a habeas
corpus petition challenging Kroll’s conviction and sentence or satisfy the new facts
requirement of 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
The Court of Appeal explained the relevant law in In Re: Charles S. Renchenski,
No. 23-1461 (3d Cir. April 18, 2023) at 2:
Petitioner has not argued that his present claims rely on new law or new facts
as described in § 2244(b)(2), and they do not. Petitioner’s present petition thus
would not qualify for authorization under § 2244. For that reason, if the District
Court concludes on review of petitioner’s objections that his present petition is
indeed second or successive, then it might be more appropriate to dismiss his
petition rather than transfer it to this Court again. If the District Court were to
dismiss the petition, then the petitioner could appeal and seek a certificate of
appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Petitioner Kroll’s Petition should be dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive
petition. He must appeal and seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals.
A certificate of appealability should not issue from this Court. One is proper
whenever 	a 	habeas 	petitioner 	makes 	“a 	substantial 	showing 	of 	the 	denial 	of 	a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A substantial showing is not synonymous
with success: a petitioner need only show that jurists of reason would debate the
correctness of the district court's denial of a habeas petition. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
Case 3:25-cv-00410-NBF-KAP Document 5 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 3

3
U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Hickox v. Superintendent Benner Twp. SCI, 2020 WL 6437411, at
*1 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2020). At the same time, it is more than good faith or the absence of
frivolity on the part of the petitioner. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338. Petitioner is
not entitled to a certificate of appealability because no reasonable jurist would disagree
that this is an unauthorized second or successive petition.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties can within fourteen days file written
objections. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely
hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d
Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections
are filed as limited to review for plain error).
DATE: November 14, 2025
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by ECF to counsel of record and by U.S. Mail to:
John L. Kroll KM-8211
S.C.I. Greene
169 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
Case 3:25-cv-00410-NBF-KAP Document 5 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 3