BANKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

W.D. Pennsylvania

BANKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania·Decided November 1, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-01244·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK BANKS, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 19-1244 ) v. ) Judge Cathy Bissoon ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge ORLANDO HARPER, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On October 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 2) recommending that Frederick Banks’s 2241-habeas Petition be dismissed, pursuant to the Court’s vexatious-litigant Orders. Service of the Report and Recommendation was made, and Petitioner has filed Objections. See Doc. 4. After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. In addition, Frederick Banks’s 2241-Petition is dismissed on the independent ground that he has not invoked the proper adjudicative mechanism. Whitmer v. Levi, 276 Fed. Appx. 217, 219, 2008 WL 1849803, *1 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2008) (“[w]here a defendant is awaiting trial, the appropriate vehicle for violations of his constitutional rights are pretrial motions or the expedited appeal procedure provided by the Bail Reform Act, . . . not a habeas corpus petition [under § 2241]”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Frederick Banks’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court, as supplemented herein.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 1, 2019 s\Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):

Frederick Banks 120759, 8E Allegheny County Jail 950 2nd Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219

1 To the extent that a certificate of appealability may be appropriate, it is denied, because Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the instant ruling debatable or wrong.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK BANKS, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 19-1244 ) v. ) Judge Cathy Bissoon ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge ORLANDO HARPER, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On October 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 2) recommending that Frederick Banks’s 2241-habeas Petition be dismissed, pursuant to the Court’s vexatious-litigant Orders. Service of the Report and Recommendation was made, and Petitioner has filed Objections. See Doc. 4. After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. In addition, Frederick Banks’s 2241-Petition is dismissed on the independent ground that he has not invoked the proper adjudicative mechanism. Whitmer v. Levi, 276 Fed. Appx. 217, 219, 2008 WL 1849803, *1 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2008) (“[w]here a defendant is awaiting trial, the appropriate vehicle for violations of his constitutional rights are pretrial motions or the expedited appeal procedure provided by the Bail Reform Act, . . . not a habeas corpus petition [under § 2241]”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Frederick Banks’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court, as supplemented herein.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 1, 2019 s\Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):

Frederick Banks 120759, 8E Allegheny County Jail 950 2nd Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219

1 To the extent that a certificate of appealability may be appropriate, it is denied, because Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the instant ruling debatable or wrong.

BANKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (W.D. Pa. 2019).

Pincite

BANKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BANKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related