DANDAR v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA, et al
ORDER denying 61 Petitioner's Motion as to Whether new law Substantive new constitutional Retroactive law; pursuant to Senate bill ; adopting 62 Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby orders the following: (1) The Court ADOPTS the 62 Report and Recommendation; (2) Petitioners 61 Motion is DENIED; (3) A certificate of appealability is DENIED; and (4) This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 3/8/2017. (nk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD G. DANDAR,
COMMONWEALTH, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:02-cv-00222-BR-SPB
ADOPTING REPORT AND
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise
Baxter denying Petitioner Ronald G. Dandar’s Motion, (Doc. No. 61), and certificate of
appealability. 1 After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections, and the
record, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Court’s reasoning follows:
In a well-reasoned opinion, Magistrate Judge Baxter concluded that Petitioner’s pleading,
although styled as a Rule 60(b) Motion, is, in fact, an attempt to file a second or successive habeas
petition without having obtained leave from the appellate court to do so. (Doc. No. 62, at 6-7).
Out of an abundance of caution, Magistrate Judge Baxter additionally determined that if Petitioner
filed a true Rule 60(b) Motion, the claims set forth therein lack merit. (Id.). Petitioner’s only
“objection” to the Report and Recommendation is a request that Magistrate Judge Baxter recuse
herself for violating “the United States Constitution, the [Pennsylvania] Constitution, [and the]
Rules of Federal Court” when she extended Petitioner’s deadline to file objections by an
“unconstitutional ten days,” rather than twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 70).
Assuming arguendo that Petitioner’s objection triggered de novo review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2012), the Court finds no reason to disturb Magistrate Judge Baxter’s
The relevant procedural background is set forth in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. No. 62).
conclusions. Upon reviewing Petitioner’s Motion, the Court agrees that Petitioner’s Motion
constitutes an effort to file a second or successive habeas petition. Because Petitioner Dandar did
not obtain leave to file a second or successive habeas petition from the court of appeals as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the unauthorized
petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (per curiam). Although the Court may
transfer, rather than dismiss, a habeas petition that has not been authorized by the appellate court,
the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter’s assessment that “it would be a waste of time and
judicial resources to transfer the instant motion” given Petitioner’s numerous applications with the
Third Circuit that have all resulted in denial. (Doc. No. 62, at 6 n.6). The Court further finds that
even if Petitioner’s pleading constituted a Rule 60(b) Motion, the claims set forth therein are
meritless. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation;
Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED;
A certificate of appealability is DENIED; and
This case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2017
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?