Beris Jose Cabrera v. Ms. Haneworth - Habeas Corpus Transfer Order

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 8, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Beris Jose Cabrera v. Ms. Haneworth, Superintendent SCI Laurel Highlands, et al.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:26-cv-00597

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (40.6K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BERIS JOSE CABRERA, :
Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-363

V. : (JUDGE MANNION)
MS. HANEWORTH, :
Superintendent SCI Laurel
Highlands, et al., :
Respondents :
MEMORANDUM
Currently before the Court is pro se Petitioner Beris Jose Cabrera
(“Cabrera’)’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. For
the reasons stated below, the Court will transfer this habeas action to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(“WDPA’).
I. BACKGROUND
A. Underlying Pennsylvania Criminal Proceedings
On February 20, 2001, a jury sitting in the Court of Common Pleas of
Fayette County (“Fayette CCP”) found Cabrera guilty of corrupt
organizations (18 Pa. C.S. §911(b)(3)), conspiracy to commit corrupt
organizations (18 Pa. C.S. §911(b)(4)), criminal solicitation to conspire to
possess controlled substances with intent to manufacture or deliver (18 Pa.

C.S. §902(a)), and possession of controlled substances with intent to
manufacture or deliver (35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30)). See (Doc. 1 at 1-2);
Docket, Commonwealth v. Cabrera, No. CP-26-CR-1278-2000 (Fayette
Cnty. Ct. Com. PI.) (“CCP Dkt.”); Commonwealth v. Cabrera, No. 504 WDA
2016, 2016 WL 5825918, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2016)
(unpublished).' The trial court sentenced Cabrera to an aggregate sentence
of state incarceration for a minimum of thirty years to a maximum of sixty
years. See (Doc. 1 at 1); CCP Dkt.; Cabrera, 2016 WL 5825918, at *1.
Cabrera then pursued an direct appeal, which was ultimately unsuccessful.
See CCP Dkt.; Cabrera, 2016 WL 5825918, at *1 (“This Court affirmed the
judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied
allowance of appeal.” (citing Commonwealth v. Cabrera, 790 A.2d 336 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 2001) (unpublished), appeal denied, 796 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2002))).
Thereafter, Cabrera pursued post-conviction collateral relief via three

' The Court takes judicial notice of the docket for Cabrera’s Fayette
CCP criminal case. See Orabi v. Aft’y Gen. of fhe U.S., 738 F.3d 535, 537
n.1 (3d Cir. 2014) (“We may take judicial notice of the contents of another
Court’s docket.”); Mickell v. Lycoming Cnty. Cent. Collections Off. & Admin., 821 F. App’x 74, 75 (3d Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (taking “judicial notice of
the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County criminal docket” for
plaintiff's underlying criminal case); see also Sledge v. Aft’y Gen. of Pa., No.
13-cv-1075, 2013 WL 4786234, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2013) (taking judicial
notice in Section 2254 habeas action of “the dockets in Petitioner’s criminal
case in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County and in his direct
appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court’).
_2-

petitions filed under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S.
§§9541-46 (“PCRA’), all of which were rejected. See (Doc. 1 at 2-7); CCP
Dkt.; Cabrera, 2016 WL 5825918, at *1, 2 (explaining that Cabrera previously
filed two PCRA petitions, which the PCRA court denied, and affirming
dismissal of Cabrera’ third PCRA petition). As far as the Court can discern,
Cabrera has not filed any submissions in the CCP since he appealed from
the dismissal of his third PCRA petition in April 2016, see CCP Dkt., which
the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed on August 31, 2016. See Cabrera, 2016 WL 5825918, at *1, 2.
B. Procedural History
Cabrera commenced the instant action by filing his Section 2254
petition, his first such petition, which the Clerk of Court docketed on February
13, 2026. (Doc. 1.) Cabrera neither remitted the $5 filing fee nor sought leave
to proceed in forma pauperis when he filed his petition; as such, an
Administrative Order issued requiring him to either remit the $5 fee or file an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. (Doc.
3.) Cabrera timely complied with the Administrative Order by paying the fee
on February 27, 2026. (Doc. 4.)

-3-

When filing his Section 2254 petition, Cabrera did not use this Court’s
standard form and instead submitted a handwritten petition. See (Doc. 1 at
1-8). Consequently, the Court issued an Order on March 2, 2026, which,
inter alia: (1) provided Cabrera with notice of the warnings required by United
States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 2000) and Mason v. Meyers, 208
F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000); (2) granted Cabrera leave to withdraw his Section
2254 petition without prejudice to filing a new Section 2254 petition raising
all grounds for relief from his Fayette CCP convictions and sentence; (3)
granted Cabrera thirty days to return a notice of election in which he informed
the Court whether he wanted the Court to rule on his petition as filed or
withdraw his petition and file an all-inclusive petition; and (4) admonished
Cabrera if he failed to return a notice of election, the Court would rule on his
petition as filed. See (Doc. 5 at 1-4). More than thirty days have passed, and
Cabrera has not returned his notice of election. Therefore, the Court will
analyze his petition as filed.
C. Cabrera’s Section 2254 Habeas Petition
Cabrera raises four claims in his Section 2254 habeas petition. See
(Doc. 1 at 3-7). First, Cabrera argues that his “[djefense counsel” was
ineffective for filing a motion to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and

-4-

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) (en banc),
instead of “address[ing] any issues in the case in [sic] hand.” (/d. at 3-4.)
Second, Cabrera contends that his speedy trial rights were violated because
he “was held in custody for ‘five months and fourteen days’ until he was
finally taken to trial.” (/d. at 4-5 (cleaned up)). Third, Cabrera asserts that his
“defense counsel” was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his
“alleged confession.” (/d. at 5-6.) Fourth, and finally, Cabrera argues that his
“defense counsel” was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting his “conspiracy charge.” (/d. at 6-7.)
Along with his claims, Cabrera asserts that his petition is timely due to
“newly discovered facts (Com v Burton [sic]) and evidence because no one
told him he could file a Habeas Corpus [sic], something he did not know or
would have known (Martinez v. Ryan [sic], 132 Sct [sic] 1309 (2012)f)].” (/d.
at 8.) For relief, Cabrera seeks “a new hearing and/or trial and in the very
least an evidentiary hearing.” (/d.)
Il. LEGAL STANDARD
District courts are tasked with conducting a preliminary review of
Section 2254 habeas petitions. See R. 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. §2254 (“The clerk
must promptly forward the [habeas] petition to a judge under the court’s
assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it.”). When

-5-

conducting this review, ‘“[i]f 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.” See id.; see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994)
(‘Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition
that appears legally insufficient on its face.”).
DISCUSSION
After conducting a preliminary review of Cabrera’s Section 2254
habeas petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Even though the
Court could dismiss Cabrera’s petition on this basis, the Court will instead
transfer it to the WDPA.
In states such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which have two

or more federal judicial districts, a state prisoner may file a habeas petition
in the federal judicial district where they are in custody or where their court
of conviction is located because those districts have “concurrent jurisdiction
to entertain the petition.” 28 U.S.C. §2241 (d). Here, Cabrera filed his petition
while confined in Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution Laurel
Highlands (“SCI Laurel Highlands”), which is located in Somerset County.
See Lawrence v. Hainsworth, No. 24-cv-213, 2024 WL 4505138, at *1 (W.D.
Pa. Oct. 16, 2024) (indicating that SCI Laurel Highlands is in Somerset

-6§-

County). Somerset County is located within the Western District. See 28
U.S.C. §118 (c) (‘The Western District comprises the counties of Allegheny,
Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Blair, Butler, Cambria, Clarion, Clearfield,
Crawford, Elk, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Greene, Indiana, Jefferson, Lawrence,
McKean, Mercer, Somerset, Venango, Warren, Washington, and
Westmoreland.”); Lawrence, 2024 WL 4505138, at *1 (noting that Somerset
County is in the Western District).
Additionally, Cabrera challenges his conviction and sentence from the
Fayette CCP. See (Doc. 1 at 1-2). Like Somerset County, Fayette County is
located within the Western District. See 28 U.S.C. §118 (c); Williams v.
Weizel, No. 21-cv-114, 2021 WL 293266, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2021)
(indicating that Fayette County is “within the Western District of
Pennsylvania” (citing 28 U.S.C. §118 (c))).
Because this District is neither the federal judicial district where
Cabrera is in custody nor where his court of conviction is located, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider his Section 2254 habeas petition. Although the
Court could dismiss Cabrera’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, the Court
recognizes that:
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds
that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the
interest of justice, transfer such action . . . to arty other such court

-7-

in which the action . . . could have been brought at the time it was
filed. 28 U.S.C. §1631.?
In this case, it is a close call whether the interest of justice warrants
transferring this action to the WDPA because Cabrera’s petition is facially
untimely, and it does not appear that he has set forth sufficient grounds for
equitable tolling. Nevertheless, because Cabrera is incarcerated and
proceeding pro se, as well as out of an abundance of caution, the Court will
transfer his petition to the WDPA.

2 However, a district court “in the exercise of its discretion and in
furtherance of justice,” may transfer a petitioner's Section 2254 petition to
“the district court for the district within which the State court was held which
convicted and sentenced [the petitioner].” /d. Additionally, a district court may
transfer any civil action, “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses”
and “in the interest of justice,” to any district where the action might have
been brought. 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a); see also In re McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ.
Holdings LLC, 909 F.3d 48, 57 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Under 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a), a
district court may transfer a civil action to another district where the case
might have been brought, or to which the parties have consented, for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.”
(citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995))).
Furthermore, “it has been the general practice of the United States District
Courts in Pennsylvania to transfer habeas corpus petitions to the federal
district where the Common Pleas Court is located that conducted the
underlying criminal trial of the petitioner.” Sheffer v. Close, No. 26-cv-496, 2026 WL 829369, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2026) (citations omitted).
-8-

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will transfer this action to
the WDPA. An appropriate Order follows.

He E. MANNION
United es District Judge
26
DATE: dl:
26-0363-01

-9-