2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-14-2015 

# Y ak o v D r a b o v sk i y v . W a r de n A l le n wo o d F C I

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s Au g us t i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Y ak o v Dr a bo v sk iy v . W a r de n A l le n w ood F C I " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 877. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/877ALD
- 277 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ N o. 15

- 1631

___________ YAKOV G. DRABOVSKIY,

Appellant

v. WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 03

- 14

- cv - 00805) District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________________________________ Submitted on Appellant’s R equest for a Certificate of Appealability u nder 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(1) , and for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 23, 2015 Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA and RENDELL , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 14, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

_ ________

* This dispositi on is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Yakov Drabovskiy, a federal inmate, appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment in part and vacate in part.
Th i s is the second time this case has been before us. Th e facts surrounding Drabovskiy’s filing of the underlying petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are set forth
in Drabovskiy v. Allenwood , 597 F. App’x 47 (3d Cir. 2015) , and we need not repeat them here. Suffic e it to say , Drabovskiy unsuccessfully sought habeas review of a prison rules infraction. The District Court found meritless Drabovskiy’s claims that he was deprived of due process and that the decision to sanction him was not supported by evidence. Acco rdingly, t he District Court denied his habeas petition and we affirmed that determination

. See id. Drabovskiy returned to the District Court a month after we disposed of his appeal seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)

. In his motion, Drabovskiy asserte d that neither the District Court nor this Court consider ed his claims on the merits ; thus , he argued that he was entitled to prompt consideration of the merits of his § 2241 petition. The District Court rejected Drabovskiy’s contention as simply wrong

. The court further noted that Drabovskiy’ s motion “raise[d] no matters which were not included or includable in his prior appeal. ” See D. Ct. Order (ECF # 19) at 2. Accordingly, the District Court denied the motion and inform ed Drabovskiy that no further filings are allowed in this matter without leave of the court. This timely appeal followed.3

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

. 1 We review the District Court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Se e Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White , 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008)

. We do not hesitate to conclude that t he District Court committed no abuse of discretion in disposing of D rabovskiy’s motion. As the District Court properly noted, his claims were consi dered on the merits by the District Court, in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation , which was adopted by the District Court, and then again by this Court on appeal. See Drabovskiy , 597 F. App’x at 49

- 50 & n.2

. There being no substantial quest ion presented with respect to that aspect of the appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court to the extent it deni ed Drabovskiy’s Rule 60(b) motion. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. However, we will vacate the District Court’s rul ing prohibiting Drabovskiy from filing further motions in this case because a court must provide a litigant with notice and an opportunity to respond before enjoining him from filing documents with the court. See Brow v. Farrelly , 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993)

. Although the order confines its prohibition of filings to this matter, Drabovskiy lacked notice the c ourt was considering such action and the circumstances here do not appear exigent

. Id.

1 Drabovskiy does not need a certificate of appealability because he is a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

. See United States v. Ce pero , 224 F.3d 256, 264

- 65 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler , 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012)

. His request for a certificate of appealability is, thus, denied as unnecessary.4

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the Distric t Court’s o rder to the extent it prohibits Drabovskiy from submitting further filings in this case. We will otherwise affirm. Drabovskiy’s motions , which include a motion to expedite and to file “the constitutional claim , ” are denied.