the ditch by Mr. Hill, a government witness; that they had been stopped by the State Police on Route 711; that they had not been in Clarion; and, that the defendant had not robbed the bank.
On November 15, 1972, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and sentence was imposed. The conviction was affirmed on June 12, 1973 (No. 72-2078). On June 28, 1973, after an evidentiary hearing, this court denied the defendant's application for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This denial was affirmed on appeal (No. 73-1696, November 29, 1973).
Following his conviction, the defendant was no stranger to this court. He challenged various aspects of the proceedings in numerous motions to vacate sentence and petitions for habeas corpus relief. He also filed numerous civil rights actions.
See: Civil Action No. 73-589, filed July 16, 1973
Civil Action No. 73-1028, filed December 3, 1973
Civil Action No. 73-1096, filed December 28, 1973
Civil Action No. 74-566, filed June 12, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-567, filed June 12, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-644, filed July 1, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-677, filed July 12, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-726, filed July 31, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-943, filed October 3, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-976, filed October 11, 1974
Civil Action No. 74-1117, filed November 15, 1974
Civil Action No. 75-316, filed March 14, 1975
Civil Action No. 75-329, filed March 18, 1975
Civil Action No. 75-928, filed July 30, 1975
Civil Action No. 75-952, filed July 31, 1975
Civil Action No. 75-988, filed August 8, 1975
Miscellaneous No. 6297, filed August 8, 1975
Civil Action No. 75-1469, filed November 13, 1975
Miscellaneous No. 6393, filed January 14, 1976
Civil Action No. 76-732, filed May 28, 1976
Civil Action No. 76-847, filed June 28, 1976
Civil Action No. 76-963, filed July 26, 1976
Civil Action No. 77-1450, filed December 28, 1977
Civil Action No. 78-689, filed June 19, 1978
Civil Action No. 78-1257, filed November 2, 1978.
The instant action was filed February 13, 1979, when the court granted defendant's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In his motion, defendant has set forth approximately 33 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The government has filed a response seeking dismissal of defendant's action on the grounds that defendant has previously alleged inadequate assistance and that this latest collateral attack constitutes an abuse of legal process. Defendant has supplemented his initial pleadings. In his "Objections and Traverse to the Government's So-Called Response and the Government's Frivolous Motion to Dismiss . . .," defendant denies that he has abused the judicial process and asserts that this motion "does not contain the exact same issues . . . that were presented to this court in any prior actions, if any." (p. 9)
A review of defendant's pleadings reveals essentially that in this action defendant has reformulated numerous issues which have been raised previously as alleged trial errors. For example, defendant asserts that his attorneys
"were totally inefficient and ineffective and incompetent because without objections they permitted the government prosecutors in Cr. No. 72-34 to impeach defendant Shadd with his pretrial silence about his boot-legging alibi."
The record demonstrates that in a previous motion to vacate (Civil Action No. 76-847), defendant unsuccessfully argued that his testimony at trial was impeached improperly by the use of his pretrial silence. See Shadd v. United States, 423 F. Supp. 511 (W.D.Pa.1976). Furthermore, the claim of ineffective assistance in this regard is utterly untrue. The trial transcript shows that defendant's counsel did in fact object to the impeachment.
Defendant's other assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel are similarly without basis. Defendant claims that his attorneys:
"ineffectively failed to file any pretrial motions to suppress tangible evidence (i. e. guns, money) which they knew to have been illegally seized in violation of the United States Constitution."