Turner v. US Dist Ct E Dist PA ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •     GLD-119                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-1060
    ___________
    WILLIAM D. TURNER,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
    OF PENNSYLVANIA
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civ. No. 2-11-cv-05208)
    District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
    Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    February 16, 2012
    Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: March 9, 2012)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    William D. Turner, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, is currently serving
    a life sentence for his 1981 conviction for first-degree murder. In August 1999, he filed a
    petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     in the United States
    District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging ineffective assistance of
    counsel at his murder trial. 1 The petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge who
    recommended that the District Court dismiss it as time-barred. The District Court
    adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Turner’s
    petition. 2 Turner v. Dragovich, No. 99-3975 (E.D. Pa. July 25, 2000).
    In August 2011, Turner filed in the District Court a pleading styled as a “petition
    for mandamus” seeking de novo review of his previously dismissed habeas petition.
    Turner claimed that the District Court never considered the objections that he filed to the
    Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; according to Turner, the court
    overlooked his argument that his § 2254 petition was in fact timely because it related
    back to his 1986 petition. The District Court found that Turner had failed to demonstrate
    that this argument was overlooked, and denied the petition. Turner subsequently sought
    reconsideration, but the District Court denied his request. Turner now appeals from the
    District Court’s order.
    1
    This was Turner’s second habeas petition. In 1986, he filed a petition
    complaining of undue delay in his Pennsylvania post-conviction proceedings. The
    District Court denied the petition. Turner v. Zimmerman, No. 86-6818 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3,
    1987).
    2
    This Court subsequently affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the
    petition. Turner v. Dragovich, No. 00-2348 (3d Cir. Apr. 8, 2002). Since then, Turner
    has filed several unsuccessful motions under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure seeking to reopen his § 2254 proceedings. See, e.g.¸ Turner v. Kerestes, E.D.
    Pa. Civ. No. 10-1235; Turner v. Kerestes, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-3163; Turner v. Kerestes,
    E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-3577; Turner v. Kerestes, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-4388.
    2
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and will affirm. As the District
    Court explained, the docket entries in Turner’s habeas proceeding reflect that he filed
    objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on June 20, 2000.
    Turner has failed to demonstrate that the District Court neglected to consider those
    objections before reaching its decision to deny his petition for habeas corpus. Therefore,
    the District Court properly denied the petition.
    The District Court also properly denied Turner’s motion for reconsideration. In
    the motion, Turner merely reiterated his allegations and requests for relief, and did not
    present any argument or evidence that would provide a basis for reconsideration. See
    Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 
    176 F.3d 669
    , 677 (3d Cir. 1999)
    (providing that a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted
    on one of the following grounds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
    the availability of new evidence that was not available . . . ; or (3) the need to correct a
    clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice”).
    Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will
    summarily affirm the District Court’s orders. See Third Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. Turner’s
    motion for summary action is denied.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1060

Filed Date: 3/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021