2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-14-2015

Yakov Drabovskiy v. Warden Allenwood FCI

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This August is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Yakov Drabovskiy v. Warden Allenwood FCI" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 877.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/877
ALD-277 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1631

___________

YAKOV G. DRABOVSKIY,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District 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 Request for a Certificate of Appealability

under 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 disposition 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. 

This is the second time this case has been before us. The 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. Suffice 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. Accordingly, the 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 asserted that neither the 

District Court nor this Court considered 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 informed 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. See Budget 

Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008). 

We do not hesitate to conclude that the District Court committed no abuse of 

discretion in disposing of Drabovskiy’s motion. As the District Court properly noted, his 

claims were considered 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 question presented with respect to that aspect of the appeal, we will 

summarily affirm the order of the District Court to the extent it denied 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 ruling 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 court 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. Cepero, 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 District Court’s order 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.