ROHLAND v. KAUFFMAN

Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-333.

WILLIAM ROHLAND, Petitioner, v. KEVIN KAUFFMAN, Superintendent of SCI Huntingdon, Respondent.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William Rohland, Petitioner, Pro Se.


ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the motions (Docs. 40, 41, 42, 44) by pro se petitioner William Rohland ("Rohland") requesting review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) of the court's order (Doc. 36) of July 27, 2017 dismissing his second or successive petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to Rohland's right to request leave to file same from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, (Doc. 36), and the court observing that Rule 60(b) allows a district court to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" for several enumerated reasons, FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), and it appearing from Rohland's reference to "recently discovered obtained evidence" that he seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), which rule permits a court to reopen a judgment when the movant presents "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered" previously, FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2),1 but the court observing that none of the documents attached as "new evidence" to Rohland's latest submissions would alter our earlier legal conclusion that Rohland's instant petition is a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus filed without preauthorization by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), such that this court, as a matter of law, cannot consider same, see id. § 2244(b)(1), (2), it is hereby ORDERED that Rohland's motions (Docs. 40, 41, 42, 44) are DENIED.

FootNotes


1. Rohland also cites to Rule 60(b)(3) in the title section of his fourth motion (Doc. 44) but neither articulates nor substantiates an ostensible claim of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases