Vidmosko v. Lamas et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying ptnr's motion for relief from final judgment 7 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/11/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEN VIDMOSKO
Petitioner
v.
MS. LAMAS & PA STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action: 1:12-cv-0410
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
Presently before the court is pro se petitioner Allen Vidmosko’s (“Vidmosko”)
motion (Doc. 7) for relief from a final judgment filed October 1, 2012, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) which provides:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b). Vidmosko is contesting this court’s September 10, 2012
order (Doc. 7) adopting Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion’s report and
recommendation (Doc. 5) filed May 14, 2012 recommending Vidmosko’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus be denied, and giving both parties until June 1, 2012, to file
objections, and the court understanding that the recommendation to dismiss
Vidmosko’s habeas petition was based on the fact that Vidmosko failed to pay the
mandatory filing fee or submit a certified copy of his inmate account as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); see Piskanin v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh Valley and
all of its Judges, 359 F. App’x 276, 278 (3d Cir. 2009),1 and the court noting that
Vidmosko was put on notice that failing to follow the court’s order would result in
the recommendation that his case be dismissed, and the court recognizing that, to
this date, Vidmosko has still not submitted the appropriate filing fee or a certified
copy of his inmate account, therefore, the court hereby orders that the motion (Doc.
7) is DENIED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
Dated:

1

October 11, 2012

Vidmosko appears to argue that because he received a document from the
court with a different prisoner’s name on it and because he never signed any
documents with either the federal courts or the prison which would allow him to
receive mail, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and this court’s order should
be vacated. Thus, it is not entirely clear which of the Rule 60(b) grounds Vidmosko
is seeking relief under.