IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

KELLY CONARD, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

et al., 

 Defendants

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

 Civ. No. 4:06-cv-1450 

 Magistrate Judge Carlson 

 Judge Rambo 

M E M O R A N D U M 

 Before the court is a report and recommendation filed by the magistrate 

judge in which he recommends that Plaintiff Kelly Conard’s motion to reopen her 

case (Doc. 73), filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, be denied. 

(Doc. 75). Conard has filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 

77.) No response to the objections has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, 

the report and recommendation will be adopted and the motion to reopen will be 

denied. 

I. Background 

This case was an action brought by Conard against the Pennsylvania 

State Police, Conard’s former employer. The case was assigned to Judge Malcolm 

Muir of the Williamsport division of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On 

September 28, 2007, Judge Muir recused himself from the case. The recusal was 

based on the fact that plaintiff’s ex-husband, Joe Piccola, was a court security 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 78 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

officer assigned to the Williamsport federal court building. Judge Muir considered 

Mr. Piccola to be a friend. He therefore entered an order of recusal. (Doc. 57.) 

The case was then assigned to Judge Thomas Vanaskie of the Scranton division.1

 

 Conard was initially represented by Wayne A. Ely. His representation 

terminated on March 14, 2007. On March 27, 2007, a Notice of Appearance was 

filed by Donald A. Bailey. On August 10, 2007, Douglas R. Goldhaber entered an 

appearance on behalf of Conard. While Goldhaber still appears on the docket 

sheet, all documents submitted in this case post March 27, 2007 were submitted on 

behalf of Conard by Bailey. 

 On January 15, 2009, Judge Vanaskie dismissed the claims against the 

Pennsylvania State Police (Doc. 66) after Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the 

claims against the Pennsylvania State Police could not be substantiated. On 

February 25, 2009, Judge Vanaskie dismissed the claims against Pennsylvania 

State Troopers Dennis Hile and Joseph Tripp. (Doc. 68.) 

 A notice of appeal of these judgments was filed on March 23, 2009. 

(Doc. 70.) On March 24, 2010, the judgments of the district court were affirmed 

by the Court of Appeals. (Doc. 72.) 

In October 2013, Attorney Bailey was disciplined and suspended from 

practice by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

 

1

 Judge Vanaskie was later appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 78 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

II. Discussion 

In her objections to the report and recommendation, Conard asserts as 

follows: 

[I]t appears that there is an abundance of evidence which has 

been revealed that has shown that Judges of this Court had a 

long-term bias and prejudice against Mr. Bailey which clearly 

overlapped with the handling of my case, and has given me 

very reasonable cause to believe that I have been adversely 

affected and had my case improperly dismissed as part of a 

pattern of conduct to hurt and harm Mr. Bailey and the civil 

rights clients that he represents. 

(Doc. 77, pp. 4-5.) 

 The magistrate judge found that the motion to reopen was untimely. 

(Doc. 75, p. 4.) In her objection to the report and recommendation, Conard refers 

to an attached statement which she claims warrants a reopening of this case. (Doc. 

77, pp. 6-7.) However, no statement was attached to this motion. Furthermore, 

Conard does not refer to any specific documents and the date of discovery of any 

documents to which this court could consider would amount to after discovered 

evidence. 

 The magistrate judge also found that the motion failed on the merits. The 

magistrate judge cited many cases in this district which rebuffed the argument by 

other plaintiffs that Mr. Bailey’s disciplinary proceedings adversely impacted their 

cases. (Doc. 75, pp. 6-7.) 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 78 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

 For the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation, the motion to 

reopen the case (Doc. 73) will be denied. An appropriate order will issue. 

 s/Sylvia H. Rambo 

 SYLVIA H. RAMBO 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: January 25, 2016 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 78 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 4