WINKELMAN v. SCI-FOREST STATE PRISON SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 6

ORDER STAYING CASE: This matter is stayed pending completion of petitioner's Post Conviction Relief Act proceedings, including the completion of any appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. If this matter is not rendered moot by action in the state court, the petitioner shall notify the Clerk when proceedings on the PCRA petition are completed. The Court will then reopen this matter for further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on 1/7/2025. Copy mailed to non-ECF user. (bgs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM ROBERT WINKELMAN,
Petitioner
v.
RANDY IRWIN, SUPERINTENDENT
S.C.I. FOREST, et al.,
Respondents

:
:
: Case No. 3:24-cv-196-KAP
:
:
:

Memorandum Order
In August 2024, petitioner filed a pleading styled as a Motion Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) that was intended as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C.§ 2254 attacking his conviction and sentence in Commonwealth v. Winkelman,
CP-17-CR-358-2021 (C.P. Clearfield), aff’d, 608 WDA 2022 (Pa.Super. April 26, 2023),
petition for allowance of appeal denied, 111 WAL 2023 (Pa. September 1, 2023).
Also in August, I had the Clerk send petitioner a packet of the forms used in this
court to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and denied petitioner’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis at ECF no. 1. In December 2024, petitioner sent back five
pages of corrections to the titles of his original paperwork and a letter advising that the
filing fee would be paid by institutional check; the letter, dated August 25, 2024, advised
that petitioner “authorized” a “stay of obeyance” because he had a petition seeking relief
under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–46, pending
in the trial court. ECF no. 5.
I presume what petitioner means is that he is seeking a stay under Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 276-78 (2005). A stay is appropriate under Rhines v. Weber when the
petitioner has good cause for failure to exhaust claims, the unexhausted claims are
potentially meritorious, and there is no evidence that the petitioner is trying to use the
stay as a delaying tactic. Check of the public docket sheets confirms that petitioner does
have a PCRA petition pending.
This matter is stayed pending completion of petitioner’s PCRA proceedings,
including the completion of any appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. If this matter
is not rendered moot by action in the state court, the petitioner shall notify the Clerk when
proceedings on the PCRA petition are completed. I will then reopen this matter for further
proceedings. Petitioner will need to amend his petition to include any claims exhausted
in the PCRA proceedings, so when he seeks to reopen this matter he must file a motion to
amend attaching as an exhibit a single petition complying with Habeas Rule 2, raising all
the claims on which he seeks relief.
1

No check for the filing fee has ever been received. Regardless of any other order
this matter will remain administratively closed and the petition will not be served until
petitioner pays the filing fee or files an adequate motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The parties have the right to appeal within 14 days to a District Judge from this
nondispositive Order. See Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(A).

DATE: January 7, 2025

Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge

Notice by U.S. Mail to:
William Robert Winkelman QN-7042
S.C.I. Forest
P.O. Box 945
286 Woodland Drive
Marienville, PA 16239

2