Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells v. Varner

February 17, 2009

RODNEY WELLS PLAINTIFF,
v.
BEN VARNER; DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL DEFENDANT.
RODNEY WELLS MISCELLANEOUS ACTION PETITIONER,
v.
ROGER E. KING, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. Dubois, J.

ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2009, upon consideration of: petitioner's pro se Hazel-Atlas Motion (Document No. 1, filed July 8, 2008); petitioner's pro se Suppplemental Hazel-Atlas Motion (Document No. 2, filed July 11, 2008); petitioner's pro se Motion Requesting the Court to Delay Any Rulings/Orders on Petitioner's Hazel-Atlas Motion/Supplemental Hazel-Atlas Motion ("Motion Requesting Delay of Ruling") (Document No. 21, filed November 12, 2008); petitioner's pro se Petitioner Request This Honorable Court Ascertain from the Honorable Victor J. DiNubile Concerning the Instructions Given to All Witnesses That Appeared Before the Grand Jury as It Relates to Certain Rights in Reference to Petitioner's Hazel-Atlas Motion, Supplemental Hazel-Atlas Motion, and Petitioner's Traverse to Commonwealth's Response, So Petitioner Can Display the Complete Depth of the Fraud/Intentional Fraud Perpetrated upon the Courts Via Assistant District Attorney Roger E. King ("Request for Grand Jury Documents") (Document No. 25, filed December 4, 2008); petitioner's pro se Motion/Affidavit (Document No. 26, filed December 26, 2008); and the related submissions of the parties, for the reasons stated in the attached memorandum, IT IS ORDERED, as follows:

1. Petitioner's pro se Hazel-Atlas Motion is DENIED;

2. Petitioner's pro se Supplemental Hazel-Atlas Motion is DENIED;

3. Petitioner's pro se Motion Requesting Delay of Ruling is DENIED AS MOOT;

4. Petitioner's pro se Request for Grand Jury Documents is DENIED AS MOOT; and

5. Petitioner's pro se Motion/Affidavit is DISMISSED. MEMORANDUM

I. Background

Petitioner Rodney Wells is no stranger to this Court. A state prisoner in Pennsylvania,

petitioner has industriously filed motions with this Court-motions that pertain to at least three criminal cases, which resulted in convictions in each case. Details of these cases and petitioner's subsequent filings that are relevant to the Court's decision on the pending motions are described below.

A. September 1986 Convictions and 1999 Habeas Petition

On September 3, 1986, a jury sitting in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County convicted petitioner of first degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, and conspiracy ("September 1986 Convictions"). For these convictions, petitioner is serving a life sentence for murder and five to ten years for possession of an instrument of crime and conspiracy.

On September 18, 1989, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which this Court denied by Order dated November 21, 1990. Wells v. Zimmerman, No. 89-CV-6644 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 1990). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on May 17, 1991. Wells v. Zimmerman, No. 90-CV-1953 (3d Cir. 1991).

On June 16, 1999, petitioner filed an additional habeas petition related to his September 1986 Convictions. By Order dated July 30, 1999, this Court transferred that petition to the Third Circuit for a ruling on whether to authorize a successive habeas petition. Wells v. Warden, SCI, Mahoney, No. 99-CV-3044 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 1999). The Third Circuit denied the application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition on January 28, 2000. Wells v. Warden, SCI, Mahoney, No. 99-CV-1589 (3d Cir. 2000). Petitioner subsequently filed two motions in that case-a Motion to Vacate Judgment of Sentence Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) and an Amended Petition/Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence-which this Court transferred to the Third Circuit for a ruling on whether to authorize the motions as successive habeas petitions. Wells v. Wynder, No. 05-CV-6781, 2006 WL 1648980, *3--4 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 12, 2006). The Third Circuit denied the application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition by Order of October 19, 2006. Wells v. Wynder, No. 06-CV-3088 (3d Cir. Oct. 19, 2006).

Four of the five motions presently pending before this Court were filed under a new civil action-Wells v. King (No. 08-MC-124)-but seek relief relating to petitioner's September 1986 Convictions and 1989 Habeas Petition in Wells v. Zimmerman. These include petitioner's Hazel-Atlas Motion, Supplemental Hazel-Atlas Motion, Motion to Delay Ruling, and Request for Grand Jury ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.