2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-23-2010

Ronald Dandar v. Mark Krysevig

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4381

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision 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 2010 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

"Ronald Dandar v. Mark Krysevig" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1664.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1664
ALD-154 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 09-4381 & 09-4382

___________

RONALD G. DANDAR, 

 Appellant

v.

MARK KRYSEVIG; BRADLEY H. FOULK, 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

OF THE COUNTY ERIE, PENNA.; THOMAS CORBETT, 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-0060)

District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin

___________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 18, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 23, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Ronald G. Dandar appeals the District Court’s October 28, 2009, orders denying
2

his motions for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons below, we will affirm.

In February 2008, Dandar filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In June

2008, the Commonwealth filed a response arguing that the District Court lacked

jurisdiction because the petition was second or successive. While the § 2254 petition was

pending, Dandar filed several motions for injunctive relief.

 On May 4, 2009, Dandar filed a motion for injunctive relief (docket entry #40) in

which he requested more time in the prison library. He then filed another motion (docket

entry #41) requesting the District Court to order prison officials to stop discriminating

against him based on his handicap. The Magistrate Judge made an oral recommendation

to deny the motions during a conference call. The District Court adopted the Oral Report

and Recommendation and denied the motions (docket entry #91). Dandar filed a notice

of appeal which was docketed at C.A. No. 09-4381.

On May 22, 2009, Dandar filed a motion for injunctive relief (docket entry #46) in

which he complained that his Z code single-cell status was about to be rescinded. In a

motion dated June 15, 2009, (docket entry #50), Dandar complained that his Z code status

had been rescinded and this violated his rights to due process. He also contended that he

was denied use of handicapped cells and showers. The Magistrate Judge made an oral

recommendation to deny the motions during a conference call. The District Court

adopted the Oral Report and Recommendation and denied the motions (docket entry #92). 

Dandar filed a notice of appeal which was docketed at C.A. No. 09-4382. He also filed a
3

motion to consolidate the two appeals.

Dandar’s requests for injunctive relief challenge conditions of his confinement and

are unrelated to his challenge to his criminal conviction. These claims can be properly

raised in a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after he has exhausted his administrative

remedies. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 544 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[U]nless the claim

would fall within the ‘core of habeas’ and require sooner release if resolved in the

plaintiff’s favor, a prison confinement action such as this is properly brought under

§ 1983.”); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Dandar cannot circumvent the filing fee requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) by filing these requests for injunctive relief within proceedings

under § 2254. We note that Dandar has had three appeals or actions dismissed as

frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state claim. See Dandar v. PA Board of Probation,

C.A. No. 02-2114; Dandar v. PA Board of Probation, W.D.Pa. Civ. No. 00-cv-00327; and

Dandar v. U.S. District Court, W.D.Pa. Civ. No. 00-cv-00186. Thus, he may not bring a

civil action by proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm

the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. To the extent Dandar requests

that the appeals be consolidated in his motion dated December 18, 2009, it is granted. In

all other respects, the motion is denied.