Opinion
3:20-cv-121-KRG-KAP
10-19-2022
JUAN VILLANUEVA, Plaintiff, v. Dr. DANCHA, et al., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Recommendation
The “Motion to Reopen Civil Action,” ECF no. 40, should be denied.
Report
This is effectively a rerun of the proceeding in May at ECF no. 29 and ECF no. 30. I repeat what I said there:
Juan Villanueva, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and therefore subject to the prison Litigation Reform Act, filed a complaint in June 2020 complaining about medical care decisions made at S.C.I. Laurel Highlands in October 2018. I screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A and recommended that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. I then screened the amended complaint and recommended it be dismissed with one more chance to amend. No timely amended complaint was filed. The Court dismissed the complaint on December 21, 2020. There was no appeal.Villanueva filed his Rule 60(b) motion seventeen months later, it was denied at ECF no. 32, and once again there was no appeal. Villanueva or the person who is writing his pleadings continues on, filing motions for appointment of counsel and asking for free copywork. Four and a half months after the denial of the first Rule 60 motion, he tries another, this time citing as a reason the order closing the state courts for a period in 2020. This court is not a state court.
Once again, a Rule 60 motion is neither a device that permits a litigant to ignore a judgment nor a substitute for an appeal. See Abulkhair v. Google, LLC, 839 Fed.Appx. 763, 765 (3d Cir. 2021), citing United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003). Villanueva or the person who is writing his pleadings cannot by repetition change that.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), plaintiff can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff is advised that 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).