IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


DARIAN ANTHONY LUCAS, ) 


Petitioner, ) 

v. 	 ) C.A. No. 09-187 Erie 


) 


CHRISTOPHER J. SINNOTT, et ai, ) 

Respondents. ) 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on July 27, 

2009, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and 

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 

72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The magistrate judge's first Report and 

Recommendation, filed on January 25,2010, recommended that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be denied for failure to state a claim cognizable under 18 U.S.c. § 2254. Petitioner 

objected to the report claiming that he was not filing a habeas corpus petition, but instead was 

filing a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 

In response the magistrate judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation, filed 

on February 5, 2010, recommending that the petition for writ ofhabeas corpus, which petitioner 

designates as a petition for writ ofmandamus, should be construed as a motion for relief from a 

judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and that said motion should 

be denied. The parties were allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file 

Case 1:09-cv-00187-MBC-SPB Document 19 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 4
objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail at SCI Dallas, where he is 

incarcerated. Objections to the Amended Report were filed by Petitioner on February 17,2010. 

We agree with the Amended Report and Recommendation and will dismiss this action. 

In addition, on January 15, 2010, Lucas filed a Motion (Doc. 10) in which he requests 

that this Court reopen a now-closed civil rights case filed in this court (Civil No. 99-17 Erie) and 

declare it (and several other unrelated civil rights actions) "non-frivolous." Lucas is seeking this 

relief because he has filed so many frivolous lawsuits that he now is barred from proceeding in 

forma pauperis in civil actions under the provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the 

"PLRA") codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Third Circuit Court Order dated 10/23/2003 in 

Lucas v. Tennis, et al., Appellate Docket No. 03-1190 (denying Lucas in forma pauperis status 

because he has had a least three prior civil actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a 

claim). I 

Lucas's motion, as we do with his petition, must be construed as a motion for relief from 

a judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule provides that 

the Court may, in its discretion, provide relief from a final judgment for the following reasons: 

(]) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, 

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 

rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, 

In an effort to avoid the provisions of the PLRA, Lucas also has filed corresponding actions here and in the United 

States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in which he is, by way of purported petitions for habeas 

or for mandamus, requesting that his various civil rights actions be reopened and declared "non-frivolous." See 

Lucas v. Fentzer, et al., 1 :99-cv-17 (W.O. Pa.); Lucas v. Maravich, el al., 2:09-cv-OI327 (W.O. Pa.); Lucas v. 

Maravich, el al., 2:09-cv-OI052 (W.O. Pa.); Lucas v. Maravich, el al., 2:09-cv-OI167 (W.O. Pa.); Lucas v. Forney, 

4:09-cv-O 1619 (M.D. Pa.); Lucas v. Cawley, et al., 4:09-cv-OI850 (M.D. Pa.). 

2 

I 

Case 1:09-cv-00187-MBC-SPB Document 19 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 4
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is not longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. A 

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time - and for reasons (1), (2), and 

(3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. 

Fed.R.Civ.Pro.60(c). 

None of the criteria set forth in Rule 60(b) are present here. Nor has Lucas filed this 

motion within a reasonable time. Accordingly, we will deny Lucas's motion as well. 

After de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the 

Amended Report and Recommendation and Petitioner's Objections thereto, the following order 

is entered: 

"..-

IJr-


AND NOW, this day of April, 2010, 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion to reopen and have declared 

various civil actions "non-frivolous", construed as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b) (Doc. 10), be and hereby is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Darian Lucas's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 

designated as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and construed as a motion for relief from a 

judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Doc. 3) be and hereby is 

DENIED. 

3 


Case 1:09-cv-00187-MBC-SPB Document 19 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 4
This action is hereby DISMISSED. 

The amended report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated February 5, 

20 I0, is adopted as the opinion of the court. 

~6. Co~,\t. Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. 


United States District Court Judge 


cc: 	 DARIAN LUCAS 

CS-2266 

SCI Dallas 

1000 Follies RD 

Dallas, PA 18612 

4 


Case 1:09-cv-00187-MBC-SPB Document 19 Filed 04/06/10 Page 4 of 4