The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sean J. McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Before the Court is Petitioner Ronald Dandar's Motion to Re-Open Judgment Pursuant toRule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1 [ECF No. 16]. Also pending is a motion that he has entitled "Motion as to Whether Judge McLaughlin Knew and/or Had Full Personal Knowledge that Petitioner's Non-Jury Trial on 2-5-2004 Was Rigged and Supplemental Objections to Close Case and to Re-Open and For Recusal." [ECF No. 17]. For the reasons that follow, both motions are denied.
A. Relevant Background*fn2
In March of 1983, an Erie County jury convicted Dandar at Criminal Docket Nos. 1982-1462 through 1467 of various crimes, including criminal attempt, unsworn falsifications, tampering with records, forgery, theft by deception, and criminal attempt at forgery. On August 31, 1983, the Honorable William E. Pfadt sentenced him to an aggregate period of incarceration of 15-30 years, plus 30 years of probation. Dandar received his probation sentences on the convictions at Criminal Docket Nos. 1465, 1466, and 1467 of 1982.
In July of 2002, Dandar (who was on parole at the time) filed with this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged the August 31, 1983, judgment of sentence. That petition was docketed as Dandar v. Commonwealth, et al., 1:02-cv-222 (W.D. Pa.). The Court dismissed the petition as untimely and denied a certificate of appealability. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Dandar's subsequent request for a certificate of appealability. See Oct. 27, 2005, Order in Dandar v. Commonwealth, et al., Court of Appeals Docket No. 05-3731 (3d Cir.).
In the meantime, Dandar had been recommitted as a technical parole violator and, in addition, faced revocation of the sentences of probation that he had received at Criminal Docket Nos. 1465 and 1467 of 1982. On February 5, 2004, the Honorable William R. Cunningham presided over a revocation hearing on the sentences of probation. The next day, on February 6, 2004, Judge Cunningham issued an order revoking the sentences of probation and sentencing Dandar to 23 1/2 to 47 years' imprisonment.
On or around December 27, 2005, Dandar initiated in this Court another habeas corpus action in which he challenged his February 6, 2004, judgment of sentence. That action was docketed as Dandar v. Good, et al., 3:05-cv-00472 (W.D. Pa.). This Court dismissed the petition as untimely and procedurally barred and denied a certificate of appealability. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Dandar's subsequent request for a certificate of appealability. See Oct. 22, 2007, Order in Dandar v. Good, et al., Court of Appeals Docket No. 07-2916 (3d Cir.).
Since that time, Dandar has filed with this Court a series of federal habeas petitions in which he has challenged his August 31, 1983, judgment of sentence and/or his February 6, 2004, judgment of sentence. See Dandar v. Good, et al., 1:06-cv-00046 (W.D. Pa.); Dandar v. Commonwealth, et al., 1:06-cv-00302 (W.D. Pa.); Dandar v. Krysevig, et al., 1:08-cv-60 (W.D. Pa.); Dandar v. Cameron, et al., No. 1:11-00042 (W.D. Pa.); Dandar v. Cameron, et al., No. 1:11-112 (W.D. Pa.). This Court dismissed each of those cases as second or successive, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Dandar's requests for a certificate of appealability.
Dandar commenced this habeas action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 at this docket number on or around July 3, 2012. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72. On the same day he filed the instant petition, Dandar also filed with this Court an almost identical one that he insisted be docketed separately. That petition was docketed at Dandar v. Cameron, et al., No. 1:12-152 (W.D. Pa.).
On July 16, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition filed at this docket number [ECF No. 2] and the one filed at Civil Action No. 1:12-152 be summarily dismissed without service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. The Magistrate Judge explained that in each case, Dandar was once again challenging his same state judgments of sentences and, therefore, the petitions that he filed were subject to the authorization requirements set out at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). In pertinent part, AEDPA mandates that before filing a successive habeas corpus petition, a petitioner must obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Once a petitioner moves for authorization to file a successive petition, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals must decide within thirty days whether there is a prima facie showing that the application satisfies § 2244's substantive requirements, which are set forth in § 2244(b)(2). See U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). AEDPA's allocation of "gatekeeping" responsibilities to the courts of appeals has divested district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions that are second or successive filings. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007). See also Magwood v. Patterson, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2788 (2010).
Dandar filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 8]. On August 23, 2012, this Court issued a Memorandum Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full because Dandar has not received from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals permission to file a second or successive petition. Dandar's habeas petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and this case was closed. [ECF No. ...