Rohland v. Kauffman et al

Filing 36

ORDER: 1. The report 27 of MJ Saporito is ADOPTED.2. The petn 1 for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Rohlands right to request leave from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to pursue a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) and (b)(3).3. Rohlands mtn 28 for recusal and demand 29 for evidentiary hearing are DENIED.4. The court finds no basis to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R. 11(a).5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/27/17. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM ROHLAND,
Petitioner
v.
KEVIN KAUFFMAN,
Superintendent of SCI Huntingdon,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-333
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2017, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 27) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court
dismiss the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus by pro se petitioner William
Rohland (“Rohland”) as an unauthorized second or successive petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), without prejudice to Rohland’s right to seek preauthorization
from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to file same under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3),
and the court noting that Rohland objects to the report (Doc. 30), and, following a de
novo review of the contested portions of the report, see Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp.,
791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106
n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)), and applying a clear error standard of
review to the uncontested portions, see Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-78
(M.D. Pa. 1999), the court being in agreement with Judge Saporito that Rohland’s
instant petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition filed without leave
of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)-(3), and finding

Judge Saporito’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the
record, and further finding Rohland’s objection to be without merit and squarely
addressed by Judge Saporito’s report,1 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 27) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2.

The petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus by petitioner
William Rohland (“Rohland”) is DISMISSED without prejudice to
Rohland’s right to request leave from the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals to pursue a second or successive petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) and (b)(3).

3.

Rohland’s motion (Doc. 28) for recusal and demand (Doc. 29) for
evidentiary hearing are DENIED.

4.

The court finds no basis to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c); R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R. 11(a).

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

In addition to reasserting arguments thoroughly addressed by Judge
Saporito’s report, (Doc. 30), Rohland also moves for recusal of the above-signed
judicial officer, (Doc. 28), and demands an evidentiary hearing, (Doc. 29). Recusal
is required in any proceeding in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, as well as in certain enumerated circumstances in which the judge or
a relative thereof has some interest in the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. Rohland
identifies no such circumstances in this case. Accordingly, his motion (Doc. 28) for
recusal will be denied. Further, because we dismiss Rohland’s instant petition on
jurisdictional grounds rather than for factual deficiency, the court will deny his
demand (Doc. 29) for evidentiary hearing without prejudice.