Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-03049/USCOURTS-ca3-19-03049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

DLD-103 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-3049

___________

ROBERT P. RUSSELL,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN ALLENWOOD USP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. Civil No. 1:16-cv-02149)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 30, 2020

Before: RESTREPO, PORTER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 5, 2020)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Robert Russell appeals from the District Court’s denial of his 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 19-3049 Document: 11 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
2

motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons that follow, 

we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In 1991, Russell was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to a term of life 

imprisonment, and his direct appeal was unsuccessful. Russell has since filed dozens of 

motions, petitions, and civil actions in numerous courts seeking relief from his 

conviction. See Russell v. Warden Allenwood USP, 767 F. App’x 223, 223 (3d Cir. 

2019) (per curiam). As relevant here, in 2016, Russell filed a petition pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 

claiming to rely on newly discovered evidence of his innocence. After the District Court 

dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction, we summarily affirmed the District Court’s 

judgment. See id. Russell then filed a Rule 60(b) motion continuing to assert his 

innocence, and when the District Court denied it, he timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because 

Russell appeals a final post judgment order.

1 See Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 

F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam). We review the denial of Russell’s Rule 60(b) 

motion for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d 

Cir. 2008). We may summarily affirm a district court’s decision “on any basis supported 

by the record” if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. 

1

 Russell did not need to obtain a certificate of appealability to bring an appeal in the 

context of his § 2241 proceedings. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 

2009).

Case: 19-3049 Document: 11 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
3

Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Russell’s motion, which

was not based on any proper ground for relief under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) (setting forth grounds for relief from a final judgment). Rather, Russell’s motion 

relied on arguments that he either already made or could have made in the District Court 

and in his recent appeal. We previously affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of 

Russell’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and Russell has provided no reason to disturb 

that conclusion. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.2

2

 Additionally, we deny Russell’s motion for summary reversal.

Case: 19-3049 Document: 11 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2020