Opinion
3:15-cv-131-KRG-KAP
12-22-2023
CHARLES BELLON, Petitioner v. TAMMY FERGUSON, Superintendent, S.C.I. Benner, Respondent
SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KEITH A. PESTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner's Rule 60 motion at ECF no. 126 should be denied for lack of jurisdiction and as an abuse of the writ, without certificate of appealability. The appeal from the Court's previous denial of relief to petitioner in this matter is still pending at the Court of Appeals, and in fact oral argument was only held last month. This Court has no jurisdiction at this time to grant the relief petitioner seeks.
Second, as petitioner recognizes, petitioner has a new habeas petition, currently stayed at his request, at Bellon v. Houser, Case No. 3:22-cv-44-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa.). Whether that is a proper petition or not, petitioner's filing (as I recently explained in Bellon v. Houser) of scattershot motions everywhere, in the expectation that the sheer volume of attempts multiplied by even a minimal probability of success will result in someone granting him release from custody, is improper. This motion seeks to file what is a new habeas petition within an old habeas petition and should be denied as an abuse of the writ.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties can within fourteen days file written objections. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error). '