2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-20-2008 

# In Re: Frede rick S i s ne ro s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4027

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: F r e de rick S i s ne r os " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 204. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/204D L D - 25 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4027

___________ I N RE : FRE D ER I CK C. SI SN ER O S, Pet i t i oner

___________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o E . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 2: 07- cv- 04294) Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

O ct ober30, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember20, 2008)

__________ OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerFr eder i ck M . Si s ner os , a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a w r i tof m andamus ( 1) compel l i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tt o vaca t e the or derof a r ecus ed D i s tr i ct C our tj udge di s m i s s i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s s econd ha beas corpus pet i t i on and ( 2) di r ect i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tt o t r eatthatpet i t i on as a fi r s thabea s corpus pet i t i on forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 2244. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.2 I. S is n e ro s f

ir s t f ile d a p e titio n f

o r w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254 i n N ovember1997. T he H onor abl e H arveyB art l e, I I I , deni ed thatpet i t i on on the m erit s in M arc h 1 9 9 8 . S isne ros f il ed a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l, an d w e d en ied h is r eq u est fo r a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . C . A . N o. 98- 1282. Si s ner os fi l ed another§ 2254 pet i t i on i n J ul y2004, r ai s i ng the s ame cl ai m s al l eged i n the e a r l i e r§ 2 25 4 p e t i t i on . The pe t i t i on w a s a s s i gn e d t o the H on or a bl e Lawr e nc e F. St engel , w ho di s m i s s ed i tw i th pr ej udi ce i n N ovember2004 as an unauthor i zed s econd or s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2244. U nbeknow ns tt o J udge St engel a t th a t p o in t, he h a d a t o n e tim e p a rticip a ted in S isn e ro s’ c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s a t th e sta te l evel. S pecifi cal l y , i n 1 99 4, Judg e S t eng el had si gn ed a sho w cause o rderi n S i sneros’ cas e di r ect i ng the C om m onw eal th t o s how caus e w hyvar i ous char ges agai ns tSi s ner os shou l d n ot be di sm i ssed. Judg e S t eng el did so as partof h i s m i nis t eri al du t i es as B usi ness J u d g e i n th e C o u r to f

C o m m o n P l e a s , L a n c a s t e rC o u n ty. I n O ct ober2007, Si s ner os fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e ar gui ng thatthe 2004 di s m i s s al of hi s habea s pet i t i on s houl d be vaca t ed bec aus e of J udge St engel ’ s part i ci pat i on i n hi s s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs . Si s ner os r el i es on the s upervi s oryrul e w e announc ed i n C l emm ons v. W ol fe, di r ect i ng “ea ch f e d e r a l j u d g e i n th i s c i r c u i t[ t o ] r e c u s e h i ms e l f o rh e r s e l f

f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on of a de fenda ntr ai s i ng anyi s s ue conc erni ng the tr i al or3

co n v ict ion o v er w h ich th at j u d g e p reside d in h is or h er f o rm er c ap ac ityas a stat e c o u rt j udge. ” 377 F. 3d 322, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Si s ner os l at erfi l ed a mot i on i n the D i s tr i ct C our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 455, s eeki ng r ecus al of J udge St engel fr om anyfur ther pr ocee di ngs , i ncl udi ng r es ol ut i on of the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. Si s ner os al s o fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof m andamus i n t hi s C our tdi r ect i ng J udge St engel ’ s r ecus al , w hi ch w e deni ed w ith o u t p re

ju d ice b e c a u se th e § 4 5 5 m o tio n w a s p e n d in g . Ju d g e S ten g e l su b se q u e n tly gr ant ed the § 455 mot i on. T he mat t erw as r eas s i gned t o J udge M i chae l M . B ay l s on, w ho di s m i s s ed the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe s econd ha beas pet i t i on and bec aus e the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on amount ed t o an unauthor i zed su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n . S isn e ro s h a s e v id e n tlya p p e a led n e ith e r th e d ism iss a l o f h is 2004 pet i t i on northe di s m i s s al of hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. Si s ner os now ar gues thatbeca us e J udge St engel s houl d nothave pa r t i ci pat ed i n t he cons i der at i on of the 2004 § 2254 pet i t i on, hi s or derdeny i ng thatpet i t i on s houl d be v a c a ted . H e f

u rth e r a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se h is 1 9 9 7 § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n w a s m ix e d , itsh o u ld have be en di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce, r ender i ng hi s 2004 pet i t i on hi s fi r s tforpurpos es f o r § 2 2 4 4 . II. Si s ner os ar gues thatthe s upervi s oryrul e art i cul at ed i n C l emm ons r equi r es vaca tur o f Ju d g e S teng el’s dism issal ord er. H o w ev er, Jud g e S teng el did n o t “pre side o v er” S is n e ro s ’ “ tr ia l o r c o n v ic tio n ,” b u t m e re ly iss u e d a s h o w c a u s e o rd e r, a s n o te d a b o v e .4

M or eover , beca us e Si s ner os ’ 2004 pet i t i on w as hi s s econd, and bec aus e w e had not gr ant ed hi m perm i s s i on t o fi l e i t , J udge St engel had no choi ce butt o di s m i s s the pet i t i on f o r la c k o f

ju risd ictio n . B u rto n v . S tew a rt, 5 4 9 U .S . 1 4 7 (2 0 0 7 ). F o r th e se re a so n s, it is u n c le a r w h e th e r C le m m o n s a p p lie s h e re . W e nee d notr es ol ve thatques t i on i n thi s cas e, beca us e eve n i f C l emm ons appl i ed t o the 200 4 p et i t i on , m and am us rel i ef i s not w arr anted. Iti s true that m and am us i s a p ro p e r m e a n s o f

c h a lle n g in g a d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s re f u s a l to re c u s e h im s e lf

p u rs u a n t to § 4 5 5 . See I n r e Sch. A s bes t os L i t i g. , 977 F. 2d 764, 774- 75 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . H ow ever , J udge St engel gr ant ed Si s ner os ’ § 455 m ot i on and the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as rul ed on byJ udge B a y ls o n . N ordoes Si s ner os have a “cl earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o an or dervaca t i ng the or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s 2004 pet i t i on ort o an or derdeemi ng thatpet i t i on hi s fi r s tfor p u rpo ses o f § 2 2 4 4 . S ee In re P ressm an -G u tm an C o . , 4 5 9 F . 3 d 3 8 3 , 3 9 8 -99 (3d C ir . 2006) . D es pi t e hi s al l egat i ons , Si s ner os ’ fi r s tpet i t i on w as nota mi xed pet i t i on and w as pr oper l ydeni ed on the mer i t s . A s a r es ul t , no m att erw ho the j udge w as , the D i s tr i ct C our tw as r equi r ed t o di s m i s s hi s 2004 pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e w e had notauthor i zed i t s fi l i ng. See B ur t on, 549 U . S. 147. V aca t i ng J udge St engel ’ s or derof d ism iss a l w o u ld b e a f

u til e g e stu re b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt w o u ld b e re q u ire d to r epl ace i tw i th anotheror dert o t he s ame effe ct . T o the ext entthatSi s ner os i s att empt i ng to a p p e a l th e d e n ial o f

h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , w e n o te th a t m a n d a m u s is n o t a s u b stitu te5

f o r a p p e a l. S e e In re D ie t D ru g s P ro d s . L ia b . L itig ., 4 1 8 F .3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.