From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bender v. Wynder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jul 15, 2013
Civil Action No. 05 - 998 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 15, 2013)

Summary

relying on Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35 n.46

Summary of this case from Brink v. Wengler

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05 - 998

07-15-2013

STEVEN WAYNE BENDER, Petitioner, v. JAMES WYNDER, el al., Respondents,


District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose

Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 77) and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 75). The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March 4, 2013, recommending that the Rule 60(b) Motion be denied and that the application to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 82.) The parties were served with the Report and Recommendation and informed that they had until July 2, 2013, to file written objections. Petitioner filed timely Objections on June 19, 2013. Upon review, the Court finds that Petitioner's Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Therefore, after de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and Objections thereto, the following order is entered.

AND NOW this 15th day of July, 2013,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Application for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 75) is DISMISSED as moot. Petitioner already paid the five dollar filing fee in this case on September 15, 2005. (ECF No. 3.) If Petitioner desires to appeal, then he should seek permission to proceed in forma pauperis from the Circuit Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation dated March 4, 2013 (ECF No. 82), is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

____________________

Donetta W. Ambrose

Sr. U.S. Dist. Judge
cc: Steven Wayne Bender

ES-6699

SCI Dallas

1000 Follies Road

Dallas, PA 18612

Via U.S. Postal Mail

Counsel of Record

Via ECF Electronic Mail


Summaries of

Bender v. Wynder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jul 15, 2013
Civil Action No. 05 - 998 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 15, 2013)

relying on Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35 n.46

Summary of this case from Brink v. Wengler

agreeing with the Fifth Circuit's "finding that Martinez does not present extraordinary circumstances justifying reopening of habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b)"

Summary of this case from Box v. Petsock
Case details for

Bender v. Wynder

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN WAYNE BENDER, Petitioner, v. JAMES WYNDER, el al., Respondents,

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jul 15, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 05 - 998 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 15, 2013)

Citing Cases

Marsalis v. Wetzel

See Kollock v. Glunt, 2014 WL 4080757, at *25 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2014) ("[Petitioner cannot] allege…

Brink v. Wengler

For Martinez to apply, the default must be attributable either to the failure of one's attorney, or the trial…